:  m:^^,>': 


%:^^,^^,^- 


r^'  t> 


CHAPTER  XYI. 


GOTHIC    VERSION. 


The  Maeso-Goths  were  a  Germanic  race  who  settled  on  the 
borders  of  the  Greek  empire,  and  their  language  is  substanti- 
ally a  Germanic  dialect.  Ulphilas,  or  Wulphilas,*  who  was 
ordained  first  bishop  of  the  Christian  Wisigoths  by  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia,  A.  d.  348,  translated  the  Bible  into  the  Gothic 
from  the  Greek,  {.  e.  from  the  Septuagint  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  the  original  in  the  New.  It  is  with  the  later  only 
we  are  at  present  concerned. 

Unfortunately  the  New  Testament  has  not  been  preserved 
entire,  as  far  as  yet  known. 

In  1665,  Francis  Junius  published  at  Dort,  in  Gothic 
letters  expressly  cast  for  the  purpose,  the  four  gospels  from 
the  celebrated  codex  argenteus  or  silver  MS.,  which  was 
accompanied  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  version  of  the  same  gospels 
under  the  editorship  of  Thomas  Marshall  an  Englishman. 
Junius  had  a  very  faithful  transcript  of  the  codex  made  by 
Derrer  which  accompanied  it  till  1702.  But  he  carefully  con- 
sulted the  original  codex  also. 

A  reprint  appeared  at  Amsterdam  in  1684.  The  version 
was  also  published,  with  various  improvements,  by  G.  Stirn- 
hielm  at  Stockholm  1671  4to,  from  Derrer's  transcript.    Arch- 

*  See  G.  Waitz.  Ueber  das  Leben  und  die  Lehre  des  Ulfila.  Han- 
over, 1840,  4 to. 


A    T HEAT  IS E 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 


VOLUMJi   II. 


Id  piiiecipue  officio  meo  contineri  existiinavi,  ut  adulescentes  probos  et  candidcis, 
in  quorum  studiis  fortuna  ac  spes  ccclesiae  ct  litterarum  posita  est,  ca  docerem  quae 
midto  labore  et  anxia  sedulitate  quaesita  viderer  milii  quam  verissima  repperisse; 
non  ut  illi  me  tamquam  duceni  sectai'entur  aut  in  liis  quae  tradidissem  adquiescerent, 
sed  singula  ut  ipsi  invcstigarcnt,  invcstigata  pcrpcnderent,  perpensa  probavcnt 
corrigerent  augerent. — Lachmanjj. 


TREATISE 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM 


KXHIBITING 


A   SYSTEMATIC   VIEW   OF  THAT   SCIENCE. 


BY  SAMUEL  DAYIDSON,  D.D. 

OF    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    HALLE,   AND    LL.D. 


VOLUME   II. 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


BOSTON: 

GOULD  AND  LINCOLN,  59  WASHINGTON  STREET. 


CONTENTS   OF  VOLUME  II, 


-♦- 


CHAPTER    I. 

Page 
Nature  of  the  New  Testament  Language 1 

CHAPTER  II. 

History  of  the  Text 13 

CHAPTER  III. 

Causes  of  Various  Readings       23 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  New  Testament  Canon 30 

CHAPTER  V. 
History  of  the  Text  till  the  middle  of  the  Third  Century       ...       39 

CHAPTER  VI. 
History  of  the  Text  after  the  middle  of  the  Third  Century    ...       67 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Modes  of  Classifying  the  New  Testament  Documents,  and  their 

Critical  Application 88 


IV  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Page 
History  of  the  Printed  Text 106 

CHAPTER  IX. 
History  of  the  Printed  Text  (continued) 121 

CHAPTER  X. 
Ancient  Versions — the  Peshito        150 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Philoxenian  Version       185 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Other  Syriac  Versions 195 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
.^thiopic  and  Egyptian  Versions 202 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Armenian  Version 215 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Georgian  and  other  Versions 221 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Gothic  Version 230 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Slavonic  Version      .     , 238 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
The  Latin  Version 241 


CONTENTS.  Vll 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

Page 

MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testament 262 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Description  of  the  Uncial  MSS 271 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
Cursive  MSS 318 

CHAPTER  XXII. 
Evangelistaria  and  Lectionaria 325 

CHAPTER   XXIII. 

General  Observations  on  MSS 328 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 
Quotations  of  the  New  Testament  in  Ancient  Writers 335 

CHAPTER  XXV. 
Extracts  from  the  New  Testament  in  Latin  writers 354 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

Critical  Conjecture 371 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 
Critical  Tlules 374 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
Critical  Examination  of  Passages 382 


EEBATA,  COEEECTIONS,  AND  ADDITIONS. 


The  reader  is  particularly  requested  to  correct  the  following- 
errata^  as  well  as  to  peruse  the  additional  explanations  and 
remarks. 

VOL.  11. 

Page  12,  at  the  eud  add  ;  "  The  Rev.  R.  Scott,  one  of  the  authors  of 
Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek  Lexicon,  is  also  preparing  a  Greek  dictionary 
to  the  New  Testament  and  LXX." 

Page  15,  line  13,  for  KArOAIAA2KArOT2,  read  KALOAIAA2- 
KALOT5. 

Page  16,  line  24,  for  "  cod.  Vatican  of  Matthaei,"  read  "  cod  V.  of 
Matthaei. ' 

Page  17,  at  the  end  add:  "The  codex  Ephraemi  and  other  MSS. 
shew  what  kind  of  divisions  preceded  eriyjti.  In  that  MS.  a  dot  is 
found  very  frequently  where  a  sriy^og  afterwards  ended.  The  sticho- 
metrical  division  seems  to  have  been  the  same  among  the  Greeks  and 
Latins,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  codex  Amiatinus.'" 

line  9,  after  ^'beside  the  letters,"  add  "  Postscribed  iota  is 

common  in  inscriptions  and  in  all  uncial  MSS.  except  such  as  are  Bibli- 
cal. The  only  trace  of  iota  subscribed  or  postscribed  which  Dr.  Tregelles 
remembers  to  have  seen  in  a  Biblical  uncial  MS.  is  in  U  once,  where 
001  (i^)  occurs.  But  the  iota  must  have  been  understood  in  such  MSS., 
else  copyists  could  not  have  interchanged  the  terminations  w  and  o/,  for 
example,  Aw  and  hoi.'"' 

Page  19,  line  6  from  bottom,  after  "  Sunday"  put  in  brackets  [week], 
for  edl3j3aTov  does  not  mean  Bunday,  as  Marsh  says,  but  week. 

Page  36,  line  16,  after  "  all  the  present  books,"  add  "  except  the  Apoca- 
lypse?' 


X  ERRATA,    CORRECTIONS,    AND    ADDITIONS. 

Page  75,  line  5  from  bottom,  for  "  of  the  Apocalypse  I).  E."  read 
"  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  D.  E." 

Page  83,  line  20,  after  "  cursive  ones,"  insert  these  words — "  this 
division,  in  which  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  belong  together,  is  confined  of 
course  to  the  MSS.  so  denoted  in  Paul's  epistles." 

Page  109,  line  8,  for  "  the  Latin  Vulgate,"  read  "  a  Latin  translation 
partly  based  on  the  Vulgate." 

Page  110,  line  23,  after  "  Apocalypse  alone,"  add  "  this  edition  con- 
tains the  Vulgate  as  well  as  his  own  Latin  version." 

Page  121,  line  3,  instead  of  "  the  text  is  that  of  Stephens'  third 
edition,"  read  "  the  text  fluctuates  between  the  Elzevir  and  that  in  the 
third  edition  of  Ptephens." 

Page  124,  last  line,  for  "  upwards  of  40  codices  were  collated  by 
him  for  the  first  time,  or  for  the  first  time  properly"  read  "  a  goodly 
number  of  MSS.  were  collated  by  him,  but  for  the  most  part  cursorily.'''' 

Page  125,  line  22,  for  "  threefold,"  read  "  fourfold." 

After  line  25,  insert   "  Prolegomena  also  precede  the  Acts 

and  Catholic  epistles." 

Page  140,  expunge  the  first  paragraph,  and  read  instead  the  fol- 
lowing : — "  The  text  of  the  small  edition  is  wholly  based  on  oriental  (in 
his  sense)  sources,  and  where  these  differ  among  themselves,  he  adopts 
the  readings  '  quae  Italorum  et  Afrorum  consensu  comprobarentur.'  In 
his  lai'qe  edition,  he  uses  the  combined  evidence  of  eastern  (in  his  sense) 
and  loestern  authorities.  In  the  latter  his  only  MSS."  &c.  &c.  (as  in 
the  second  paragraph). 

Page  141,  expunge  the  second  paragraph  on  the  page. 

Page  142,  line  18,  expunge  all  that  is  on  this  page,  beginning  with 
"  one  or  two  authorities,"  &c.  &c.  and  read  thus — "  Very  few  autho- 
rities are  all  that  is  available  in  certain  cases.  In  one  instance  at  least 
-De  Wette  thinks  that  his  plan  gives  a  senseless  reading.  See  Matt. 
xxi.  28-31.  But  Lachmann  denies  the  allegation.  His  reply  may  be 
seen  in  vol.  ii.  pp.  5,  6,  of  the  preface.  Tregelles  also  justifies  the 
reading  in  opposition  to  De  Wctte.  Of  course  the  mere  mistakes  of 
the  few  ancient  copies  on  which  he  relies  are  given  in  his  text,  such 
as  rr^v  without  aya-Trr])/  in  Ephes.  i.  15,  and  ii  ijAiv  for  r\  ijjTh  in  Heb.  vi. 
14.  We  do  not  find  fault  with  him  for  such  mistakes,  since,  in  exhi- 
biting them  in  his  text,  he  follows  out  his  plan  according  to  which  he 
furnished  a  contribution  to  serve  as  part  of  a  basis  for  a  pure  text. 
His  principle  is  meant  to  exclude  subjectiveness  and  caprice." 

Page  162,  line  8,  after  "  Persian,"  put  "and  Armeniau." 

Page  169,  lines,  17  and  18.  It  must  not  be  supposed,  from  the  state- 
ment here  made,  that  the  passage    John  vii.  53 — viii.  11   is  given  at 


ERRATA,  CORRECTfONS,  AND  ADDITIONS.  xi 

length  among  the  errata.  Decft  hifituria  uduUerce  i«  all  that  is  given 
in  Latin  in  the  Syriac  page.  And  for  typographical  errors  "  at  the 
end,"  read  "  at  the  beginning." 

Page  178,  line  11.  We  learn  from  Dr.  Tregelles,  that  Dr.  Lee's 
edition  of  the  Syriac  New  Testament  was  not  commenced  l)y  Dr. 
Buchanan.  The  latter  indeed  had  begun  an  edition  for  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society  which  was  printed  as  far  as  the  Acts  when  he 
died.  But  it  was  thought  desirable  to  cancel  the  sheets  ;  because  of 
the  very  peculiar  system  of  orthography  and  vocalisation  adopted. 
Hence  the  Gospels  and  Acts  were  reprinted  from  Buchanan's  text  ;  and 
the  text  of  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  was  formed  by  Lee  on 
Buchanan's  system. 

Page  180,  first  and  following  lines.  Instead  of  "  In  Schaaf  s  edition, 
and  as  Hug  states,  in  all  printed  editions  and  MSS.,  the  reading  is,  '  for 
God  himself,  by  his  grace,  tasted  death  for  all.'  But  in  the  edition 
before  us,  the  words  are,  '  but  he  himself,  by  the  grace  of  God,  tasted 
death  for  all,'  and  so  it  is  in  the  Malabar  MS.  This  agrees  with  the 
Greek,  and  shews  no  improper  alteration  of  the  original  after  the  doc- 
trinal tenets  of  the  Jacobites,"  I'ead  as  follows :  "  In  the  editions  of 
Widmanstadt,  Schaaf,  and  most  others,  the  reading  is,  '  for  God  himself, 
by  his  grace,  tasted  death  for  all.'  But  Hug  is  incorrect  in  saying  that 
this  is  the  reading  of  all  printed  editions  ;  for  in  Tremellius's,  which 
follows  the  Heidelberg  MS.,  the  reading  corresponds  to  the  Greek  ;^wp'» 
hov^  viz.  (ai_^  ^  'r^^-  Iq  the  edition  before  us,  there  is  a  third 
form  cf  the  passage,  viz.  '  He,  by  his  grace,  God,  for  every  man  hath 
tasted  death.'  (OT—Xn  OlZaOj-^^  ''Ml  '^'^-  ^^^^  there  is  merely 
a  transposition  of  words,  the  sense  being  still  the  Jacobite  reading  first 
given  by  Widmanstadt." 

Page  182.  Insert  at  the  fifth  line  from  bottom :  "  It  must  be  admitted 
that  the  collation  of  Greenfield's  text  with  Lee's  is  very  inaccurately 
printed.  But  for  this  Dr.  Henderson  is  responsible,  since  he  made  the 
list  from  Greenfield's  notes.  There  can  be  no  question  that  it  is  badly 
done." 

last  line.      Instead  of  saying  that  1  John  v.  7  is  "  put  in 

brackets,"  it  should  be  stated  that  it  is  "  omitted,"  and  the  verses  are 
numbered  6,  8,  9,  &c. 

Page  232,  line  4  from  bottom,  for,  "  it  was  transmitted  during  a  war 
in  the  seventeenth  century  to  Prague,  for  security,"  read  "  it  was  taken 
to  Prague." 

Page  234,  line  1,  for  "  La  Croze,  Wetstein,  and  Michaelis,"  read 
"  La  Croze  and  Wetstein." 


xii  ERRATA,   CORRECTIONS,   AND    ADDITIONS. 

Page  249,  lines  6  and  7,  for  "  bishop  of,"  read  "  rhetorician  at." 

Page  273,  line  11,  for  "afterwards,"  read  "  previously." 

Page  275,  line  9,  for  "209,"  read  "  1209." 

Page  295,  lines  11  and  12,  for  "where  the  MS.  itself  is  deposited, 
having  been  presented  by  Archbishop  Laud  in  1715  8vo,"  read  "where 
the  MS.  itself  is  deposited  having  been  presented  by  Archbishop  Laud, 
in  1715  8vo." 

Page  296,  line  3  from  bottom,  for  "  In  the  time  of  Wetstein  it  began 
with  Matt.  vii.  6 — viii.  34,  and  ended  with  John  xiii.  34,"  read,  "  A  col- 
lation of  this  MS.  which  had  been  made  long  before,  was  used  by  Wet- 
stein. It  began  with  Matt.  vii.  6 — viii.  34,  and  ended  with  John  xiii.  34. 
The  codex  has  many  chasms  now,  several  of  which  did  not  exist  at  the 
time  when  the  collation  used  by  Wetstein  was  made." 

Page  297,  lines  3  and  4  from  bottom,  for  "  now  in  the  Benedictine 
Library  of  St.  Germain  des  Prez,"  read  "now  in  the  Bibliotheque  du  Roi." 

Page  298,  lines  5  and  6  from  bottom,  for  "  because  the  Latin  precedes 
the  Greek  column,  and  the  Anglo-Saxon  formation,"  read  "  because  the 
Anglo-Saxon  formation  of  the"  &c. 

Page  310,  line  18,  for  "  Matt."  read  "  John." 

line  3  from  bottom,  for  "  public  library,"  read  "  University 

Library." 

Page  319,  line  9,  for  "  It  has  been  collated  by  Wetstein,  Griesbach, 
Begtrup,  in  part,  and  by  Scholz,  entirely,  as  he  says.  But,"  read  "  It  was 
collated  by  Larroque." 

Page  319,  line  24,  after  "Jackson,"  insert  "  The  text  is  sui  f/eneris, 
having  been  transcribed  from  some  older  MS.  in  which  entire  leaves  were 
wanting." 

Page  323,  line  1,  after  "  could,"  insert  "  He  supposes  that  it  once 
preceded  a  MS.  of  Chrysostom's  homilies  on  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews." 

line  3,  after  "  Tischendorf,"  put  "  But  the  letters  are  not 

properly  cursive." 

line  11,  after  "  codex,"  add,  "  Both  are  written  in  red  ink." 

Page  376,  line  2  from  bottom,  omit  the  words  "  from  the  Vulgate." 

Page  340,  lines  11  and  12,  No.  28  is  omitted.  No.  29  should  ho 
28,  &c.  &c. 

Page  354,  line  7,  for  "  Vienna,"  read  "  Vienne." 

Page  356,  lines  17  and  18,  No.  14  is  omitted.  No.  15  should  be  14, 
&c.  &c. 

Page  401,  note,  for  "  Spracidioms,"  read  "  Sprachidioms." 

Page  422,  line  7.  Instead  of  "  this  Cambridge  MS.  (codex  Bezae) 
and  /3  of  Stephens  are  identical,"  read  "this  Cambridge  MS.  (Kk.  6.  4, 
olim.  Vatabli)  and  ly  of  Stephens  are  identical." 


CHAPTER   I. 


NATURE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  LANGUAGE. 

PRELIMINARY. 

In   discussing  the   sources  of  criticism  by  which  the  New 

Testament  text  is  rectified  and  restored,  we  shall  follow  as 

closely  as  is  convenient  the  order  pursued  in  the  case  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

They  are, 

I.  Ancient  versions. 
II.  Manuscripts. 

III.  Quotations. 

IV.  Critical  conjecture. 

Before  giving  a  history  of  the  text  itself,  which  claims  our 
first  notice,  it  will  be  desirable  to  speak  of  the  language  in 
which  the  New  Testament  books  are  written. 

The  reason  why  the  New  Testament  books  were  written  in 
the  Greek  language  is  obvious.  It  was  most  widely  spread 
over  the  then  civilised  world,  and  was  therefore  best  adapted 
for  the  instruction  of  all.  It  was  most  readily  understood  by 
the  greatest  number  of  persons.  When  our  Lord  appeared  in 
the  flesh,  the  Greek  tongue  was  current  in  Palestine  itself.     It 

VOL.  II.  B 


2  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

was  the  book-language  of  the  Egyptian  JewSj  and  of  all  others 
not  Palestinian.  Hence  the  apostles  were  under  the  necessity 
of  using  it  in  their  preaching  and  writing,  when  they  went 
forth  from  Palestine  to  promulgate  that  new  religion  with 
whose  propagation  they  were  entrusted.  The  sacred  authors 
composed  the  records  of  Christianity  in  a  language  extensively 
diffusedj  and  more  readily  apprehended  than  any  other. 

In  considering  the  nature  of  the  New  Testament  diction,  it 
is  almost  superfluous  to  remark,  that  it  differs  from  the  classical 
language  of  Greece.  It  presents  indeed  a  marked  contrast  to 
the  flowing  style  of  the  celebrated  Grecian  authors  in  the  days 
of  their  prosperity  and  freedom.  Let  us  therefore  examine  its 
characteristic  elements,  that  we  may  clearly  perceive  how  ap- 
propriate a  vehicle  it  has  been  for  the  truths  of  Christianity. 

Its  constituent  elements  may  be  regarded  as  three,  viz. 
The  Greek,  the  Jewish,  and  the  Christian. 

1.  The  old  Greek  language  had  its  various  dialects,  of  which 
four  have  been  distinguished.  The  oldest  of  these  was  the 
^olic,  of  which  we  have  few  remains,  prevailing  in  Thessaly 
and  Boeotia,  Lesbos,  and  the  north-western  coasts  of  Asia 
Minor.  The  Doric  proceeding  from  Doris  spread  over  the 
greatest  part  of  the  Peloponnesus,  lower  Italy  and  Sicily. 
It  was  somewhat  harsh,  and  abounded  in  the  use  of  long  a. 
The  Ionic  was  originally  spoken  in  Attica.  But  the  colonies 
sent  out  thence  to  the  coasts  of  Asia  Minor  soon  surpassed  the 
mother  tribe  in  improvement ;  and  therefore  the  name  Ionic 
came  to  be  applied  exclusively  to  their  dialect.  From  its  nu- 
merous vowels,  this  dialect  is  the  softest  of  all.  The  Attic  was 
used  by  such  of  the  lonians  as  remained  in  Attica  after  the 
colonies  had  emigrated  to  Asia  Minor.  This  last  soon  excelled 
all  the  rest  in  refinement,  holding  as  it  did  a  middle  place 
between  the  harsh  roughness  of  the  Doric  and  the  softness  of 
the  Ionic.  Thus  the  Doric  and  Ionic  were  the  principal  dia- 
lects, to  which  the  rest  have   been  sometimes  reduced,  the 


NATURE   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   LANGUAGE.  3 

-/Eolic  being  reckoned  a  branch  of  tlie  former^  and  the  Attic  of 
the  latter. 

At  the  time  of  Philip  of  Macedon,  the  Attic  had  become 
the  most  general,  having  attained  to  a  completeness  and  range 
far  beyond  the  other  dialects.  Under  a  combination  of  pecu- 
liar influences  it  had  taken  the  lead  of  all.  Among  the  dialects 
of  the  different  peoples  it  became  the  favourite  one.  It  began 
indeed  to  be  employed  almost  exclusively.  And  when  differ- 
ent writers  adopted  it,  they  mingled  with  it  much  that  was 
derived  from  the  dialect  of  their  own  district  or  region.  Hence 
it  was  modified  and  altered.  The  departures  from  Attic 
purity  thus  introduced  by  tribes  who  had  before  used  distinct 
dialects  contributed  to  the  gradual  decay  of  genuine  Attic. 
This  change  was  brought  about  mainly  by  the  Macedonian 
conquest.  When  Greece  was  deprived  of  its  liberty,  it  was  an 
unavoidable  consequence  that  those  tribes  who  were  hitherto 
distinct  in  manners,  and  in  some  measure  independent  of  one 
another,  should  come  to  use  one  language.  The  loss  of  their 
freedom  was  the  chief  cause  of  the  intermingling  of  dialects 
and  their  consequent  corruption.  Though  the  amalgamation 
had  commenced  by  previous  intercourse  among  the  several 
republics  of  Greece,  yet  it  was  greatly  promoted  under  the 
reign  of  Philip,  so  that  the  former  dialectic  peculiarities  of  the 
language  no  longer  appeared.  In  tliis  mixture  of  dialects  that 
of  Macedonia  came  to  have  a  certain  predominance,  from  its 
being  spoken  by  the  people  who  had  obtained  the  sovereignty. 
Tlie  language  of  the  conquerors  diffused  among  the  subject 
tribes  prevailed  to  a  considerable  extent.  Thus  after  the  Ma- 
cedonian dominion,  there  was  a  mixture  of  various  elements. 
The  hdXvA.rog  -/.oivyi  OX  ' 'EXkrivr/.rj  was  formed.  Attic  purity 
degenerated.  The  Greek  language  losing  many  of  its  features 
by  the  admixture  of  elements  borrowed  from  other  dialects 
than  the  Attic,  by  the  changes  which  are  unavoidably  produced 
in  the  progress  of  time,  and  by  the  influence  of  the  Macedonian 


4  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

conquest,  was  modified  and  altered.  It  was  the  common  lan- 
guage or  dialect;  and  accordingly  the  writers  of  this  later 
period  were  denominated  o'l  -/.oivol  or  ©/"EXX^j^ig,  in  contrast  with 
the  genuine  Attics.  Still  it  continued  to  be  substantially  the 
Attic;  for  the  chief  characteristic  of  that  dialect  remained, 
notwithstanding  the  various  modifications  introduced.  The 
yioivYj  didXiycrog  is  the  usual  standard  of  grammars  and  Lexicons, 
departures  from  it  being  specified  under  the  name  of  particular 
dialects. 

In  the  colonies  established  by  Alexander  and  his  succes- 
sors, where  the  Greek  inhabitants  collected  from  every  people 
had  lost  their  own  dialects,  the  same  common  language  prevailed. 
In  Egypt  especially,  where  literature  was  cultivated  with  much 
zeal,  the  influence  of  the  Macedonian  conquest  was  felt.  At 
Alexandria,  the  chief  seat  of  such  influence,  the  common  lan- 
guage was  developed  and  modified  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
inhabitants  and  the  places  whence  many  of  them  had  come. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  brief  account  that  the  common  or 
Hellenic  language  employed  after  the  time  of  Alexander  had 
the  Attic  dialect  for  its  basis.  The  Attic  element  was  still 
observable,  though  the  former  purity  and  elegance  of  that 
dialect  were  in  a  great  measure  lost.  Even  before  the  subju- 
gation of  Greece  it  had  begun  to  degenerate,  when  different 
writers  conformed  to  it  because  it  was  reckoned  the  most 
polished.  Others  were  absorbed  into  it,  for  each  tribe  in 
adopting  it  naturally  introduced  many  foreign  idioms.  And 
when  we  reflect  on  the  conquests  of  the  Macedonians,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  their  language  had  a  great  influence  in  modifying 
the  later  diction  which  had  arisen  from  the  amalgamation  of 
diverse  dialects.  This  predominant  influence  was  most  observ- 
able at  Alexandria. 

Another  element  of  the  New  Testament  language  is  the 
Jeioish.  The  writers  were  Jews  by  birth — familiar  with  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  and  ideas.     The  idiom  of  the  language  in 


NATURE   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT   LANGUAGE.  5 

which  those  sacred  books  were  written  was  not  remote  from 
their  habits  of  expression.  They  Avere  accustomed  to  speak 
Aramaean  or  Sjro-Chaldaic,  which  was  cm-rent  in  Palestine, 
and  learned  Greek  from  intercourse  with  others,  in  part  per- 
haps from  the  Septuagint.  And  when  a  foreigner  learns 
another  language  he  has  for  a  time  to  think  in  his  own,  so 
that  his  conceptions  are  Jewish,  though  clothed  in  the  cos- 
tume of  the  language  he  has  acquired.  Now  the  outward 
complexion  of  thought  is  influenced  by  its  peculiar  nature. 
The  latter  modifies  the  forms  as  well  as  the  proper  construc- 
tion of  words.  Hence  the  diction  of  the  New  Testament  par- 
takes of  a  Hebrew  colom'ing,  arising  from  the  fact  that  tlie 
writers  were  Hebrews  accustomed  to  speak  the  Aramaean  or 
later  Hebrew,  and  in  some  instances  acquainted  with  the  an- 
cient language  of  the  Scriptures.  Their  vernacular  tongue 
influenced  the  mode  of  exhibiting  their  conceptions. 

Thus  various  Hebrew  influences  contributed  to  the  present 
form  of  the  New  Testament  diction.  The  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  had  some  direct  bearing  on  it.  They  had  also  a 
greater  indirect  power  over  it,  through  the  Septuagint  version. 
And  then  the  Aramaean,  current,  dialect  of  Palestine  exerted 
its  influence  at  the  same  time. 

A  third  element  may  be  characterised  as  the  Christian  ele- 
ment, which  lies  in  the  subjects  to  which  the  Greek  language 
was  applied.  The  existing  vocabulary  had  no  terms  to  ex- 
press many  ideas  which  the  sacred  writers  were  prompted  to 
communicate.  No  native  Greek  had  ever  written  on  Chris- 
tianity. They  were  the  first  who  were  authorised  to  make 
known  in  writing  a  revelation  of  mercy  and  grace.  The  doc- 
trines of  the  new  religion  had  not  yet  been  divulged  in  their 
full  import.  When  therefore  native  Hebrews  were  commis- 
sioned to  write  about  Christianity  in  the  Greek  tongue,  they 
had  ideas  for  which  that  tongue  furnished  no  appropriate 
terms.     The  subjects  were  new.     Hence  it  became  necessary 


6  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

either  to  employ  words  already  existing  in  new  senses,  or  to 
make  entirely  new  ones.  Accordingly  both  expedients  were 
adopted  by  these  Jewish  authors  and  teachers  of  the  new 
religion. 

Thus  the  Christian  element  of  the  New  Testament  diction 
arose  from  the  subjects  on  which  that  diction  was  employed, 
and  the  nature  of  the  ideas  to  be  expressed.  We  need  not 
therefore  be  surprised  that  the  Greek  language  received  many 
modifications  from  the  exigency  of  the  case.  The  theological 
element  must  be  taken  along  with  others  as  pervading  and  in- 
fluencing the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament. 

If  the  representation  now  given  be  correct,  it  will  be  seen 
that  there  are  various  sources  whence  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  New  Testament  language  should  be  sought. 

There  are  first  the  writers  called  the  o'l  y.onol,  among  whom 
are  Aristotle,  Polybius,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Plutarch,  and 
others. 

In  relation  to  the  second  element,  it  is  necessary  to  consult 
the  Alexandrine  version  and  the  apocryphal  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  The  former  was  made  under 
the  influence  of  circumstances  to  which  the  New  Testament 
writers  were  exposed.  The  Jews  at  Alexandria  had  to  acquire 
by  conversation  the  Greek  language  current  in  that  city.  Into 
it  they  translated  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and 
thus  their  version  exhibits  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  a  foreign 
language  pervaded  by  a  Hebrew  influence.  Accustomed  to 
the  Jewish  Scriptures,  and  having  had  the  Aramaean  for  their 
vernacular  tongue,  the  words  and  phrases  of  the  Greek  which 
they  had  learned  were  tinged  with  Jewish  idioms  and  peculi- 
arities. The  translators  had  to  coin  new  words,  or  to  use 
existing  ones  in  new  senses ;  because  the  subjects  of  which 
the  Old  Testament  treats  were  in  a  great  measure  unknown  to 
the  Greeks.  Many  ideas  required  for  their  expression  appro- 
priate terms  which  the  compass  of  the  Greek  tongue  did  not 


NATURE   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT   LANGUAGE.  7 

furnish.  Thus  the  Septuagint  exhibits  the  same  idioms  with 
the  New  Testament.  The  only  difference  is  that  in  it  the 
Hebraisms  are  more  strongly  marked,  because  it  is  a  direct 
translation  from  a  Hebrew  original. 

The  apocryphal  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  also  afford 
illustrations  of  the  New  Testament  diction.  They  were  written 
by  Jews  on  Jewish  affairs.  And  the  apocryphal  works  be- 
longing to  the  New  Testament  were  frequently  imitations  of 
the  latter,  and  consequently  illustrate  its  diction. 

With  respect  to  the  works  of  Josephus  and  Philo,  they 
afford  less  aid  in  explaining  the  idiom  of  the  Septuagint  and 
New  Testament,  because,  though  contemporary  with  the 
apostles,  they  were  able  to  overcome  the  influence  of  their  ver- 
nacular tongue,  and  to  write  in  a  style  nearer  that  of  the  later 
Greek  than  what  appears  in  the  New  Testament.  Their  lan- 
guage is  much  more  remote  from  the  colloquial  dialect  of  the 
common  people  than  that  of  the  New  Testament  writers  ;  for 
the  latter  is  the  diction  of  ordinary  intercourse  rather  than  of 
books.  The  Hebrew  idiom  however  is  apparent  in  these  two 
authors,  though  in  a  far  less  degree  than  in  the  sacred  writers. 

I.  According  to  the  representation  now  given,  the  ground- 
element  of  the  New  Testament  diction  is  the  later  Greek  in 
that  peculiar  form  of  it  which  arose  as  the  language  of  inter- 
course in  which  the  peculiarities  of  the  different  dialects 
hitherto  separated  were  mixed  together,  with  the  Macedonian 
element  particularly  prominent.  The  peculiarities  of  this 
ground-element  are  either  lexical  or  grammatical,  the  former 
being  more  prominent. 

1.  Lexical  peculiarities.  We  are  prepared  to  find  in  it 
words  and  forms  of  words  belonging  to  all  the  dialects, 
especially  the  Attic,  as  uaXog,  Eev.  xxi.  18,  21 ;  (pidXn^  Rev.  v. 
8,  asroV,  Matt.  xxiv.  28 ;  aX?jt)w,  ]\[att.  xxiv.  41 ;  Luke  xvii. 


O  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

35,  6  ffKoros,  T^v/jyva.,  'iXiug.  To  the  Doi'ic  belong  vid^M^  John 
vii.  30;  KXi[3avog,  Matt.  vi.  30;  ^  Xi/^og,  iroia.  To  the  Ionic 
belong  yoyyxj^c,),  ^jjccw,  T^jji'jje,  ^aSfji^og,  gxo^'Trl^M.  (pvoo  intransit. 
is  both  Ionic  and  Doric.  To  the  Macedonian  may  be  as- 
signed '7ragi/ub(3oX'/j,  j-j/i/).  Thus  we  have  found  vestiges  of  all 
the  dialects  except  the  ^olic,  which  had  probably  fallen  into 
disuse  as  the  language  of  ordinary  life  before  any  of  the  other 
dialects. 

Again,  words  or  word-formations  which  were  rare  in 
ancient  Greek,  or  were  used  only  by  poets,  came  into  common 
use  or  passed  over  into  prose,  ex.  gr.  av^vTsoo,  /j^sffovvxriov,  dxd- 
XriTog,  sffdrisig,  aXsTtru^,  l^s'^x^i  ^^  irrigate.  Ko^aff/oi/,  on  the  con- 
trary, passed  out  of  common  life  into  the  speech  peculiar  to 
writing. 

Farther,  words  received  a  new  form,  mostly  an  enlarged 
or  prolonged  one,  ex.  gr.  //.irorAsala,  i-Maia,  amdifjua  (dvddyjf/.a,), 
yBvsdia  (yividXia),  yXuffSox.o/ji.ov  (yXuffgoxo/Msm),  'h'TraXai  (jxdXai),  s^dsg 
(X^'^^)j  ^^«OTva  (s^ccTivrjg),  a/V>j,«,a  (a/VjjfT/c),  -^sufffia  (-^svdog),  d-ffdnn^ffig 
{dTdvrriiMa),  naxjyjiaig  (xaL/;j^;5/xa),  X^yyia  (Xux^'ov),  oTraffia  (&4"?)} 
evy-Kv^ia  (guyx-jgyjgig),  /j^iXigffiog  (/xsX/Vo's/og),  d'Troffraala  (d'7r6<rra(rig), 
(BadiXiGSa,  (fiasiXsia),  sTiyJjvu  (sxysco),  arrjXM,  eXssivog  (iXimg),  voSdid 
{]iiO(S<Sid),  'XiTdofhai  (crsro/z-a;),  oixobo/Jbrj  (^ohodo/ZTjdig),  s^vzvi^u)  (apuT- 
W(^w),  hi-Aarm  (Ssxarsuw),  d^or^idoj  (&^6u),  l3i(3Xa^i8iov  (fSilSXidiov), 
dirdgiov,  -^lyiov  ('4'/^),  \iovh<iia  (^vov6iT7}gig),  xarwrovri^cij  (xaraTovTooo), 
[MdiyjiX'ig^  -^ih^iffrrig,  d^yog  of  twO  terminations,  o/AKUw  for  '6fji.vu/jbi, 
(^■j^du  for  ^u^sui,  (Sa^'iu  for  ISa^uvoj,  ga^ou  for  ffai^u,  yoXdu  for 
yoX6o/ui,ai^  &C. 

Again,  words  known  to  the  ancient  language  received  new 
meanings,  ex.  gr.  Ta^axaXiu  to  ask,  TaidsuM  to  chastise,  suya^iffriu 
to  give  thatiJcs,  ava?tX/cw,  dvam-TTTuj,  dvccxsT/jyai,  to  recline  at  table, 
dvo%^ivo!i,ai  to  answer,  d.itordccuijjai  to  renounce  or  hid  farewell  to, 
auyx^hcAi  to  compare,  ^vXov  living  tree,  dmar^oipr,  life,  Ks(paXig 
volume   or  hoolc,   ih<syjiij.w  a  distinguished  one,   o-^uiMiov   wages. 


NATURE   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT    LANGUAGE.  9 

6->^d§iov  Jish,  s^svyof/jai  to  uttei'j  Ts^iffvdo/Mai  to  be  distracted  with 
business^  Trufxa  corpse^  ff%oX';j  school^  &c. 

Still  further,  new  words  were  formed  chiefly  hj  composi- 
tiorij  ex.  gr.  as  dAXoT^ios'rig-/,o'7roc,  dvd^u-rdgssxog,  f/^ov6(pdaX^aoij  at/jua- 
Tsx^vgia,  diraToz^ivo^iuboci,  dyadou^yeuj  &c.  Special  attention  is 
due  to  a  class  of  nouns  ending  in  ^a  as  -/.ardXvfj^a,  dvra'rodo/jba, 
xaro'g^w/xa,  ^dTis/ia,  yhr/j/j.a,  sxr^cofLU,  /Sacrr/cr/^a  /  to  nouns  in  svvj  as 
(jOfx^fiadyirrjc,  su/MToXiTi^g  /  adjectives  in  ivog,  as  o^d^ivog,  o-^l^ivog,  crgw/Voj, 
xadrj/JiSgivog,  har^dxivog  /  verbs  m  ow  and  i^Uj  as  dvaxoivoM,  d<pv'!rv6(t), 
doXioco,  s^o'jdsvooj,  og^^/^w,  dsiy/juari^oj,  '^zar^i^iM  /  new  forms  of  ad- 
verbs, ex.  gr.  irdvroTi,  'rraibiohv,  xa(Jwj,  'zavoiTti.* 

2.   Grammatical  peculiarities. 

These  are  confined  for  the  most  part  to  the  forms  of  nouns 
and  verbs  which  were  quite  unknown  before,  or  not  used  in 
certain  words,  or  foreign  to  the  Attic  book-language.  The  use 
of  the  dual  is  rare.  With  respect  to  syntax^  the  later  Greek 
has  little  that  is  peculiar.  There  are  some  examples  of  verbs 
construed  with  other  cases  than  such  as  had  been  used  before ; 
of  conjunctions  elsewhere  joined  with  the  optative  or  subjunc- 
tive, connected  with  the  indicative.  The  use  of  the  optative, 
especially  in  oblique  speech,  seldom  occurs. 

II.  By  the  Jewish  element  we  are  prepared,  in  the  second 
place,  to  look  for  Hebrew  modifications  in  the  Greek  language 
of  the  New  Testament,  because  the  Hebrew,  or  more  properly 
the  Aramaean,  was  the  vernacular  tongue  of  the  writers. 

Hebraisms  are  divided  into  two  classes,  perfect  and  imper- 
fect. The  former  include  words,  phrases,  and  constructions 
that  have  no  parallels  in  the  native  Greek,  and  are  therefore 
entirely  moulded  after  tlie  Hebrew.  Imperfect  Hebraisms  con- 
sist of  words,  phrases,  and  constructions  wliich  have  some 
parallel  in  the  Greek,  but  were  more  probably  derived  from 
the  Hebrew. 

*  See  Winer's  Grammatik,  u.  s.  w.  p.  24,  ct  sec[.  fourth  edition. 


10  BIBLICAL   CKITICISM. 

Examples  of  jperfect  Hebraism  are  cxXayyji^oiJjai  to  have 
comjjossion^  from  C'xXayyva  howels,  related  in  tlie  same  way  as 
t^'''?Dl   and  ^D"^.        '  0:puXriiMaTa   afi'ivai,   TgoCwcroi^  Xa/x(3dvuv  from 

QiJQ  N^3^    -rXarvvsiv    rrjv   xa^dlav,    TogiViffSai    h'XiGM,   ob Tag 

for    ovdiig,    i^ofi.oXoysT'sdai    sv    rii/i,    a/uba^Tuviiv    Ivwt/ov,    olxohoi-i^uv    to 
edify. 

Imperfect  Hebraisms  are  such  as  iJg  one  for  T^c^jrog ;  ffTs^/ia 
qfsjyrm//,  from  V^T  5  yXuffga  for  nation ,  from  pt^'?  ;  avdyTtyj  trouble, 
from  "ly  ;  hg  ocravrriffiv  to  meet,  from  nx"npP  •  'zs^ara  Trig  7^5,  from 
Y'}}Ar\  ■'psx  5  ;/s?7,og  share,  Hebrew  i^?p.  Though  these  expres- 
sions have  probably  parallels  in  Greek,  they  appear  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  Hebrew,  since  they  occur  but  seldom  in  the 
former  language. 

The  contest  formerly  carried  on  for  years  respecting  the 
character  of  the  New  Testament  diction  is  now  matter  of 
history.  Some  writers  laboured  to  prove  that  it  possessed  the 
purity  and  correctness  of  the  old  Attic  language.  These  were 
termed  purists,  who  strove  with  ill-judged  zeal  to  shew  that 
the  New  Testament  exhibits  the  genuine  Attic  idiom  unadul- 
terated by  Hebraisms.  Conceiving  that  all  departures  from 
this  standard  were  blemishes  or  imperfections  in  the  sacred 
text,  they  endeavoured  to  banish  Hebraised  phrases  entirely 
from  the  New  Testament,  as  though  the  language  should  be 
disfigured  by  them.  Pfochen  was  the  first  who  undertook  to 
shew  that  all  the  expressions  found  in  the  New  Testament 
occur  in  classic  Greek  authors ;  and  he  was  followed  by  nume- 
rous writers  on  the  same  side. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  undertook  to  prove  that  the  dic- 
tion, so  far  from  exhibiting  Attic  purity,  abounded  everywhere 
in  Hebraisms.  This  party  ultimately  triumphed,  though  they 
pushed  their  view  to  an  unwarrantable  extent,  calling  many 
expressions  Hebraistic  which  were  not  so.  The  truth  lies 
between  the  two  parties.  It  is  now  universally  acknowledged 
that  the  thoughts  are  Hebrew  but  the  costume  Greek.   The  con- 


NATURE   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   LANGUAGE.  11 

ceptions  are  such  as  Jetos  would  employ  under  the  influence  of 
tlie  Spirit ;  while  the  dress  in  which  they  are  clothed  is  the 
Greek  language  then  current.  There  is  a  Hebrew  colouring 
that  cannot  be  mistaken,  though  Hebraisms  are  not  so  abun- 
dant as  the  Hellenists  in  their  controversies  with  the  Purists 
frequently  supposed.* 

III.  We  are  prepared  by  the  Christian  or  ecclesiastical  ele- 
ment to  find  words  already  existing  in  the  vocabulary  of  the 
Greeks  employed  in  a  new  sense,  or  new  ones  framed  to  express 
ideas  for  which  no  corresponding  terms  existed  before.  Thus, 
T/cr/c,  EPya,  3/xa/oD(r^a/,  sy.Xsysgdai,  dixaioduvrj,  'TT^odoyrroXri-^ia  partiality^ 
avTiXuT^ov  ransom^  o'l  ciyioi,  a-TroeroXog^  ^aitriGiMa^  &C.  The  Greek 
language  had  not  been  employed  on  the  subjects  to  which  the 
New  Testament  writers  applied  it,  especially  religious  topics ; 
and  they  were  therefore  obliged  either  to  employ  terms  already 
in  use  in  a  sense  foreign  to  their  classical  one,  or  to  make  new 
words  for  the  purpose. 

According  to  Jerome  there  are  Cilicisms  in  Paul's  epistles, 
that  is,  peculiarities  belonging  to  the  language  of  Cilicia  which 
was  the  apostle's  birth-place.  He  instances  four  such,t  viz,  v'tto 
dvd^ui-TTivrig  7},w^acy  1  Corinth,  iv.  3,  hy  mart  s  judgment ;  dviJ^ui'Trivov 
Xsyc/j,  ep.  to  Romans  vi.  19,/  speak  after  the  manner  of  7nen  y 
ol  xarivd^xr^aa  t/,«,wi/,  /  was  not  burdensome  to  you^  2  Corinth,  xii. 
13 ;  fj,rjds}g  bij,ag  xara(3^al3BvsTo^  let  no  one  defraud  you,  Colos.  ii. 
18.  It  is  doubtful  whether  these  should  be  regarded  as  idioms 
transferred  from  the  Cilician  dialect,  notwithstanding  the 
affirmation  of  Jerome.  They  are  perhaps  terms  and  phrases 
of  unusual  occurrence  belonging  to  the  later  Greek. 

As  to  the  name  of  the  New  Testament  and  Septuagint 
Greek,  it  has  been  called  Hellenistic,  because  the  Jews  who 
spoke  Greek  are  called  Hellenists  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts 

*  See  Winer,  p.  14,  et  seq. 
t  Ad  Algasiam  quaest  10.    0pp.  vol.  iv.  p.  204,  ed.  Martianay. 


12  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

vi.  1).  This  appellation  is  not  appropriate.  The  designation 
Hehrew-  Greek  or  Jewish-  Oreeh  is  more  suitable,  i.e.  Greek  with 
a  strong  colouring  of  Hebrew. 

In  recent  times  the  nature  of  the  Greek  diction  peculiar  to 
the  Greek  Testament  has  been  fundamentally  investigated, 
and  its  general  features  systematised  by  Winer  in  his  invalu- 
able grammar.  Good  lexicons  of  it  have  also  appeared  from 
Wahl,  Bretschneider,  and  Wilke.  That  of  Eobinson  is  on  the 
whole  the  best  for  English  readers,  especially  in  the  last  edi- 
tion. It  is  still  suscejjtible,  however,  of  much  improvement. 
Should  Winer  publish  his  long  contemplated  dictionary,  it 
will  doubtless  supersede  all  others,  for  in  this  department  he 
has  no  rival. 


CHAPTER  IT. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXT. 

This  may  be  divided  into  two  parts,  History  of  its  external 
form ;  and  History  of  the  text  itself. 

1.  The  autographs  of  the  New  Testament  books  have 
perished  irrecoverably.  Hence  we  are  left  to  investigate  the 
text  with  such  aids  as  ancient  history  and  documents  may 
supply. 

What  material  the  writers  made  use  of  can  only  be  con- 
jectured. It  has  been  thought  that  it  was  Egyptian  paper,  or 
the  papyrus.  Afterwards  the  hides  of  animals  were  used  for 
the  purpose,  parchment,  glazed  cotton  paper,  and  linen  rag 
paper.  It  is  also  supposed  that  the  text  was  originally  written 
continuously,  without  interpunction  or  division  of  words,  sen- 
tences, and  paragraphs.  But  there  may  have  been  cases  in 
which  some  expedient  was  occasionally  adopted  for  the  purpose 
of  marking  a  division,  ex  gr.  a  simple  dot  at  the  end  of  a 
word.  And  it  is  likely  there  Avas  such.  Accents,  spirits,  and 
iota  subscribed  were  also  wanting.  The  character  was  what 
is  called  the  uncial^  the  cursive  not  having  come  into  general 
use  till  the  tenth  century.  In  consequence  of  the  original  ab- 
sence of  these  distinctions  and  marks  in  the  text,  MSS.  differ 
in  the  mode  of  separating  words  from  one  another.     Thus 


14  BIBLICAL   CKITICISM. 

Philip,  i.  1,  wliere  the  usual  text  has  suv  hiricxoiroig^  Codd.  39, 
67,  71,  have  auvimsxovoiQ.  So  do  the  ancient  interpreters,  as  we 
learn  from  various  passages  in  the  works  of  Epiphanius,  Chry- 
sostom,  Jerome,  and  Theodoret  in  particular.  Hence  Gun'xis- 
xoiroig  is  the  reading  adopted  by  Chrysostom  and  other  fathers. 
Hence  also  Epiphanius  blames  some  persons  for  separating 
John  i.  3  thus,  %wg/j  aWov  iy'svsro  ouSii/,  and  connecting  6'  ysyovsv 
with  sv  ahrOj  ^un  rv.     He  recommends  that  the  passage  should 

be  read sysvsTo  ovdh  '6  y'syovsv  sv  aurSj.      But  Irenaeus 

reads  the  passage  in  the  way  condemned  by  Epiphanius. 
Chrysostom  again  regards  the  division  followed  by  Irenaeus  and 
others  as  heretical^  referring  it  to  the  Macedonians.  Similar 
examples  of  different  division  in  the  text  of  the  epistles  might 
be  given  from  the  commentaries  of  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  and 
Theodoret. 

The  inconveniences  of  the  continuous  mode  of  writing  must 
have  been  felt  at  an  early  period.  Accordingly  remedies  were 
applied  to  remove,  or  at  least  to  lessen  them.  About  the  year 
462  Euthalius,  a  deacon  at  Alexandria,  divided  the  text  of  the 
Pauline  epistles,  and  soon  after  that  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic 
epistles  into  gTiy^oi  or  lines  containing  so  many  words  as  were  to 
be  read  uninterruptedly.  Of  his  procedure  in  the  gospels  we 
have  no  account.  We  know  that  they  too  were  so  separated ; 
but  are  unable  to  discover  whether  Euthalius  himself  ar- 
ranged them  in  that  manner.  The  reckoning  by  gt'i-xoi  was 
called  sticliometry^  and  a  copy  fornished  with  such  distinction  a 
stichometrical  one.  This  mode  of  writing  was  adopted  in  MSS. 
several  of  which  have  survived  with  it,  as  the  codex  Cantabri- 
giensis,  Claromontanus,  &c. 

It  should  not  be  supposed  however  that  it  was  regularly 
received  into  all  MSS.  It  was  adopted  in  some,  perhaps  the 
majority,  in  different  places.  But  it  was  never  a  regular,  uni- 
versal system  of  division. 


HISTORY   OF   THE  TEXT.  15 

The  following  is  an  example  from  H.  or  the  Codex  Cois- 

linianus : — 

Titus  ii.  3. 

nPESBTTAS  NHc&AAIOTS  EINAI 
2EMNOT2 

2na)PONA2 

TriAINONTAS  TH  HISTEI 

TH  AFAHH 

nPESBTTIAAS  HSATTHS 

EN  KATA2THMATI  lEPOnPEnEIS 

MH  AIABOAOT2 

MH  OINH  nOAAH  AEAOTAllMENAS 

KALOAIAA2KALOT2. 

The  entire  number  of  <sri-xoi  is  usually  given  at  the  end  of 
each  book,  but  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  every  MS. 
having  an  enumeration  of  (sriyoi  at  the  end  was  actually  divided 
as  to  its  text  in  that  manner,  when  first  written.  They  were 
sometimes  very  short  as  in  E.  or  cod.  Laud,  where  each  line 
generally  contains  but  one  word. 

The  g'/j/^ara  which  are  also  enumerated  at  the  end  of  MSS. 
or  books,  may  be  the  same  as  the  STiyju.  Hug  states,*  that  as 
far  as  known,  the  '^nij^ara  are  found  only  in  the  gospels,  or  in 
MSS.  containing  the  gospels.  If  therefore  a  different  person 
from  Euthalius  divided  the  gospels,  he  may  readily  have  given 
the  divisions  a  different  name  from  that  applied  to  the  epistles 
and  Acts. 

In  order  to  save  the  space  necessarily  lost  in  stichometry, 
points  were  afterwards  put  for  the  end  of  each  <5ri-)(oc^  and 
the  text  was  written  continuously  as  at  first.  This  is  observ- 
able in  cod.  K.  or  Cyprius,  according  to  Hug.  Yet  the 
points  in  this  MS.  may  be  its  interpunction-marks  without 
any  reference  to  cri-xoiy  especially  as  they  are  similar  to  the 
*  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  219,  fourth  edition. 


16  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

interpunction  of  the  cod.  Boernerianus.*  Or,  a  large  letter  was 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  a  srlyjag^  as  in  the  cod.  Boernerianus, 
where  however  there  is  also  a  corrupt  and  absurd  interpunction. 
It  is  often  asserted  that  grammatical  interpunction  gradu- 
ally arose  from  stichometry.  But  the  assertion  is  not  Avell- 
founded.  There  was  an  interpunction  in  New  Testament  MSS. 
before  stichometrj,  as  in  the  cod.  Alexandrinus  A.  which 
doubtless  was  intended  to  facilitate  the  reading.  From  this 
time  onward  till  the  ninth  century  the  marks  and  signs  of 
punctuation  were  different  in  different  MSS.  They  were  irre- 
gular and  fluctuating.  Thus  Isidore  of  Seville  states  that  the 
only  note  of  division  in  his  time  was  a  single  point,  which  is 
thought  to  have  been  placed  at  the  bottom  to  denote  a  short 
pause  or  comma;  to  denote  a  larger  pause  or  semicolon,  in 
the  middle ;  and  to  denote  a  period  or  full  pause,  at  the  top 
of  the  last  letter  in  the  sentence.  But  it  is  very  doubtful 
whether  this  definite  meaning  was  intended  by  the  different 
collocation.  Cod.  Basil.  E.  is  thus  pointed.  In  others,  as  in 
the  cod.  Ephrem.  the  point  is  placed  near  the  middle  of  the 
letter.  Cod.  Laud,  employs  a  cross  for  a  period.  Others  use 
it  for  almost  all  the  punctuation  marks,  as  Vatican.  1067. 
If  we  may  judge  from  the  codex  Augiensis  which  is  as- 
signed to  the  ninth  century,  words  were  also  separated  by 
blank  spaces  or  intervals,  and  a  point  at  the  end  of  each. 
Cod.  Vatican,  of  Matthaei,  belonging  to  the  eighth  century, 
has  the  point  and  the  comma;  and  cod.  Vatican.  351  the  colon. 
A  regular  system  of  punctuation  was  not  established  till  after 
the  invention  of  printing.  In  the  tenth  century,  punctuation 
had  attained  a  considerable  degree  of  regularity ;  but  the  laws 
and  external  marks  of  it  fluctuated  and  varied,  till  they  were 
firmly  settled  in  the  early  printed  editions.  Robert  Stephens 
varied  the  punctuation  in  his  successive  editions. 

Accents  are  more  ancient  than  OTiy^oi  or  lines.     They  had 
*  Hupfeld,  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1837,  p.  859. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  17 

been  applied  at  least  to  the  Old  Testament,  before  the  time 
of  Euthalius.  It  is  possible  they  may  have  been  partially 
adopted  in  the  New  Testament  at  that  period.  But  Euthalius 
first  brought  them  into  general  use  in  his  stichometrical  edition 
of  the  New  Testament.  Yet  they  were  frequently  omitted  in 
stichometrical  MSS.  after  his  time.  The  accentuation  system 
first  became  universal  about  the  tenth  century.  At  the  same 
time  also,  iota  subscript  was  introduced  with  the  cursive  writing, 
though  it  was  often  written  afterwards  heside  the  letters.  The 
Greek  note  of  interrogation  came  into  use  in  the  ninth  ccn- 
tmy. 

As  early  as  the  third  century,  mention  is  made  of  divisions 
called  TinpdXatoi.  Probably  they  were  of  indefinite  length,  like 
the  Capitula  of  Jerome  in  the  Old  Testament.  Both  Tertul- 
lian  and  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  allude  to  them. 

The  gospels  were  anciently  divided  into  definite  %t(pdXaia 
and  titXoi.  The  former  are  usually  attributed  to  Ammonius  of 
Alexandria,  who,  in  making  a  harmony  of  the  gospels  divided 
the  text  into  a  number  of  these  little  sections.  To  these  Ammo- 
nian  sections  Eusebius  adapted  his  ten  tables  or  canons  which 
represent  a  harmony  of  the  gospels.  Hence  they  are  called 
Ammonian-Eusebian  sections.  They  are  numbered  in  the 
side  margin  of  MSS.,  and  in  extent  are  smaller  than  our  pre- 
sent chapters,  since  Acts  contained  40,  the  epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans 19,  and  that  to  the  Galatians  12.  The  titXoi  or  hreves 
were  of  later  origin  than  the  xef  aXa/a,  but  their  precise  date  as 
well  as  their  author  cannot  be  discovered.  Csesarius  in  the 
fourth  century  does  not  seem  to  have  known  them.  Nor  did 
Epiphanius  and  Chrysostom.  But  Euthymius  and  Theophy- 
lact  were  well  acquainted  with  them.  Hence  it  has  been  in- 
ferred, that  they  are  not  older  than  the  sixth  century.  The 
TirXoi  are  larger  sections  than  the  ■A.s(pdXaia^  and  are  so  called 
because  the  titles  or  subjects  of  those  portions  are  written  either 
in  the  upper  or  lower  margin  of  Greek  MSS. 

c 


18  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  these  rirXci  or  larger  portions  were 
also  called  %s:pdXaia  by  several  writers,  thus  leading  to  confusion 
and  mistake.  They  were  so  denominated  by  Theophylaet,  by 
Robert  Stephens,  and  Kiister.  Even  in  the  very  same  MS. 
the  smaller  portions  are  rightly  styled  y-ifaXaia  in  the  note  at 
the  end  of  it ;  while  the  larger  portions  are  also  called  m(pa\aia. 
(instead  of  T'lrXni)  in  the  account  given  at  the  beginning  of  the 
MS.  Such  is  the  case  in  the  codex  Regius  2861.  The  gospel 
of  Matthew  contains  68  tW\oi  and  355  xjp aXa/a  /  that  of  Mark  48 
rWkdi  and  352  %z(paX(iia. ;  that  of  Luke  83  r/rXo/  and  348 
%i<p6Xaia.  John's  gospel  has  18  tWkoi  and  232  -/.KpaXaia. 
Both  divisions  are  found  in  most  MSS.  of  the  gospels. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  Epistles  were  also  divided 
into  jcsfaXa/a  or  chapters,  which  many  have  ascribed  to  the  in- 
vention of  Euthalius  in  the  fifth  century.  But  it  appears  from 
his  own  language,  that  he  merely  composed  the  summaries  of 
the  chapters,  rn^  ruv  -As^aXaloj]/  r/Jssn,  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic 
epistles ;  while  in  regard  to  Paul's  epistles,  the  summaries  had 
been  already  made  by  one  whom  he  praises  as  "  one  of  our  wisest 
and  Christ-loving  fathers,"  but  does  not  name.  These  sum- 
maries he  incorporated  with  his  stichometrical  edition ;  but  the 
division  itself  into  chapters  he  did  not  make.  The  number  of 
such  chapters  is  in  Acts  40 ;  in  the  epistle  of  James  6 ;  in  1 
Peter  8  ;  in  2  Peter  4 ;  in  1  John  7  ;  in  2  John  1 ;  3  John  1 ; 
Jude  4 ;  epistle  to  Romans  19 ;  1  Corinth.  9;  2  Corinth.  11 ; 
GaL  12;  Eph.  10;  Philip.  7;  Colos.  10;  1  Thes.  7;  2  Thes. 
6  ;  epistle  to  Heb.  22  ;  1  Timothy  18  ;  2  Timothy  9  ;  Titus  6; 
Phil.  2.  This  division  of  chapters  is  commonly  found  in 
Greek  MSS. 

Andreas  of  Cappadocia,  in  the  fifth  century,  divided  the 
Apocalypse  into  24  Xoyoi  and  72  -/.sfaXaia. 

Besides  these  divisions  many  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment have  others  that  deserve  attention.  The  Jews  were  ac- 
customed to  divide  the  Pentateuch  and  the   Prophets   into 


HISTORY    OF   THE   TEXT.  19 

chapters,  one  of  which  was  read  every  Sabbath  day.  It  was 
probably  in  imitation  of  this  practice  that  the  New  Testament, 
which  was  publicly  read  in  the  early  Christian  assemblies,  was 
similarly  distributed  into  church-lessons.  Euthalius  introduced 
into  his  stichometrical  edition  57  such  sections  in  the  Acts  and 
Epistles.  The  gospels  were  similarly  divided.  They  are 
called  amyvuisiMara  or  amyv'Mdiig.  They  have  also  been  termed 
TSff/xoTa/,  a  word  applied  to  the  Jewish  sections  by  Justin 
Martyr.*  It  occurs  also  in  Clement  of  Alexandria.  It  is  very 
doubtful  however  whether  the  use  of  it  in  Stromat.  iv.  503, 
vii.  750j  be  identical  with  the  avayvJjeiMara  or  church-lessons. 
More  probable  is  it,  as  De  Wette  conjectures,-}-  that  it  is  the 
same  as  %i(pakam  in  the  oldest  sense  of  that  word,  cajpitulum. 
The  gospels  had  the  same  number  of  sections  for  public  read- 
ing, viz.  57.  It  has  been  thought  that  this  number  both  in 
the  gospels  and  the  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  arose 
from  its  adaptation  to  the  53  Sundays  in  the  longest  year,  and 
four  festivals.  In  this  manner  the  whole  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment would  be  read  in  a  year.  But  the  assumption  is  very 
questionable.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Christians  were 
habituated  to  this  exact  routine.  They  selected  certain  books 
at  certain  times,  from  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  the  New. 
In  his  stichometrical  MSS.,  Euthalius  marked  these  lessons  by 
a  (af;/^)  at  the  beginning  of  each,  and  r  [j'l'Koi)  at  the  end.  It 
is  thus  in  the  codex  Bezae.  Marsh  states  |  that  he  saw  other 
MSS.  in  which  the  Sunday  is  marked  at  the  beginning  of  each 
lesson  which  is  to  be  read  on  that  day,  by  the  word  ffa/3/3arov 
with  a  number  annexed  to  it,  thus  CA.r,  CA.A. 

As  festival  days  multiplied,  this  division  did  not  suit  the 
altered  arrangement.  Certain  passages  therefore  were  selected 
from  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles  for  reading  lessons,  and 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  capp.  65,  72.  t  Einleitung,  p.  43,  Note  a. 

X  Notes  to  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  pp.  907,  908. 


20  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

the  rest  were  omitted.  Such  selections  were  adapted  to  the 
Sundays  and  festivals  of  the  year  according  to  a  certain  order. 
The  practice  also  began  of  writing  them  together  in  a  separate 
MS.  which  was  called  l%koyahiov^  or  Lectionarium  in  Latin. 
When  it  contained  selections  from  the  gospels  alone,  it  was 
termed  iuay/sXigd^wv  or  Evangeliariurn ;  from  the  Acts  and 
Epistles  'TT^a^aTogoXog.  In  these  codices  the  selections  were 
often  written  in  the  order  in  which  they  were  to  be  read. 

Such  reading-books  were  made  earlier  among  the  Latins 
than  the  Greeks.  In  the  Latin  church  they  can  be  traced  to 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  centmy ;  in  the  Greek  to  the  eighth,  in 
the  time  of  John  Damascenus. 

The  term  awa^d^iov,  for  which  the  Latins  used  Capitulare 
and  Lectionarmm,  means  a  list  of  reading-lessons  for  the  Sun- 
days in  the  year,  marked  by  the  initial  and  closing  words. 
Menologium  again  means  a  like  list  for  festival  and  saints'  days 
in  the  year.  Sometimes  both  accompany  MSS.,  sometimes 
only  one  of  them.  Scholz  has  transcribed  the  Synaxarium 
and  Menologium  belonging  to  K.  and  M.  262,  274,  at  the 
end  of  the  first  volume  of  his  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament. 

With  regard  to  the  titles  of  the  separate  books,  it  is  gene- 
rally admitted  that  they  did  not  proceed  from  the  writers  them- 
selves. They  are  of  later  origin.  In  some  cases  they  are 
unsuitable,  as  --x^d^ug  ruv  d'xoerdXuiv.  They  differ  in  MSS.  Thus 
we  find  TO  Tiard  MarSaTov  suayysXiov,  svayysXiov  y.ard  MardaTbVj  &C. 
It  is  also  apparent  from  various  statements  in  the  writings  of  the 
fathers,  that  they  were  not  prefixed  by  the  authors  of  the  books. 
The  evangelists  indeed  may  have  prefixed  the  single  word 
svayyiXiov,  as  Chrysostom  says  Matthew  did  •*  but  the  phrases 
xard  MardaTbv,  xard  AouTidv,  were  added  afterwards.  The  titles 
were  prefixed  to  the  different  gospels  and  epistles  after  the 
*  Homil.  1  in  Matth.  Praef. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  21 

latter  were  collected  together,  to  distinguish  the  compositions 
of  the  respective  writers,  and  were  used  early,  most  of  thera  in 
the  second  century ;  as  we  infer  from  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian. 

The  subscriptions  were  originally  nothing  but  repetitions  of 
the  titles.  At  a  subsequent  period  however,  when  commen- 
tators began  to  enquire  into  the  circumstances  connected  with 
the  individual  books,  notices  of  the  place  where  they  were 
written  and  other  points  were  appended.  The  author  of  the 
Synopsis  of  Sacred  Scripture  gives  most  of  the  places  in  which 
Paul's  epistles  were  written ;  and  Euthalius  introduced  into 
his  stichometrical  edition  of  the  New  Testament  the  summaries 
prefixed  to  the  various  books  in  this  Synopsis ;  as  also  the 
places  assigned  to  Paul's  epistles.  But  he  varies  from  these 
places  in  several  instances,  in  his  subscriptions.  Having  ob- 
tained a  definite  form  from  Euthalius,  they  retained  it  after- 
wards in  most  MSS.     Their  inaccuracies  are  well  known. 

The  present  division  of  the  New  Testament  into  chapters 
was  made  by  Cardinal  Hugo  in  the  thirteenth  century,  from 
whom  proceeded  also  that  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  in- 
troduced by  him  into  his  Bihlia  cum  piostilla  whence  it  came 
into  the  Greek  Testament  also.  The  division  into  verses  was 
first  made  by  Sanctes  Pagninus  in  his  translation  of  the  Bible 
into  Latin  from  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  published  at 
Lyons  in  4to  in  1528.  The  invention  however  is  usually 
attributed  to  Robert  Stephens,  who  made  it,  as  his  son  Henry 
tells  us,  on  a  journey  from  Paris  to  Lyons  {inter  equitandum) . 
It  was  introduced  into  his  edition  of  1551,  which  was  his 
fourth  of  the  Greek  Testament.  It  should  be  observed  that 
Stephens  does  not  follow  Pagninus's  division  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, though  he  does  in  the  Old.  His  verses  differ  fi'om 
Pagninus's.  His  own  statement  is  that  it  was  founded  on  the 
stichometrical  practice  of  ancient  Greek  MSS.     It  was  doubt- 


22  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

less  SO  founded  in  part.  Whether  Pagninus  himself  adopted 
his  division  from  MSS.  is  not  known.  But  Stephens  does  not 
refer  to  the  system  of  Pagninus,  though  there  is  sufficient  evi- 
dence that  he  was  acquainted  with  it.  One  thing  is  manifest, 
that  his  division  is  worse  than  that  of  Pagninus,  or  even  the 
ancient  stichometrical  one.  Michaelis  thinks  that  the  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase  "  inter  equitandum"  is  not  that  Robert 
Stephens  accomplished  the  task  while  riding  on  horseback, 
but  that  he  amused  himself  with  it  during  the  intervals  of  his 
journey  at  the  inn.  "  If  his  division,"  says  Dr.  Wright, 
"  was  a  mere  modification  of  that  of  Pagninus,  it  might  easily 
have  been  done  'inter  equitandum.'  "* 

*   In  Kitto's  Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical  Literature. 


CHAPTEK   III 


CAUSES  OF  VARIOUS  READINGS. 

Before  proceeding  to  give  the  history  of  the  text  itself,  we 
shall  point  out  the  causes  of  various  readings  in  it.  These 
should  be  known  before  the  states  through  which  it  has  passed 
and  the  attempts  made  to  restore  its  original  form  be  described. 
What  circumstances  contributed  to  departures  in  the  text  from 
its  primitive  condition  ?  What  gave  rise  to  changes  in  it  ? 
Endeavours  to  bring  it  back  to  its  pristine  purity  presuppose 
deteriorating  causes. 

Alterations  of  the  original  text,  or  as  they  are  termed 
various  readings^  may  be  traced  to  two  sources,  accident  and 
design.     Mistakes  were  made  unintentionally  ox  purposely. 

(a)  Accidental  mistakes. 

1.  Transcribers  saw  badly,  and  therefore  they  mistook  letters 
for  one  another,  especially  those  whose  shape  was  somewhat 
alike.  They  also  transposed  letters,  words,  and  sentences. 
They  also  omitted  letters,  words,  and  clauses,  especially  when 
two  of  them  terminated  in  the  same  way.  In  like  manner, 
they  repeated  letters  from  mistake  in  sight.  Examples  may 
be  found  in  Mark  v.  14,  avriyyn\u,v  for  a'xriyyiikav ;  Romans 

xii.  13,  iJbViiaii  for  yj^iiaig  ;  Luke  ix.  49,  s%(/}X\joiJjiv  for  VKOiX-jGafLiv  • 

Acts  X.  38,  og  for  wg,  and  also  wg  for  og.  Transposition  of 
single  letters  is  exemplified  in  Mark  xiv.  Qb,  where  'sXaj3ov  is 
for  ijSaXov ;  XV.  16,  where  hjg  is  for  sVw/  of  words  in  Romans 


24  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

i.  13,  Tta^irh  rtva  for  rtva.  xa^TTou  /  ix.  11,  rou  diou  Tgo^sC/s  for 
T^odigig  rou  Diou.  The  omission  of  words  and  sentences  by 
ofMoioriXi-jTov  was  not  uncommon.  When  a  word  occurred  a 
second  time  after  a  short  interval,  the  copyist  having  written 
it  once,  looked  again  at  the  MS.  before  him,  and  his  eye  hap- 
pened to  catch  the  same  word  m  its  second  occuri-ence.  Hence 
he  omitted  the  part  between  the  word  at  its  first  and  second 
occurrence.  This  happened  too  when  the  final  syllable  was 
alike.  Thus  in  Matt.  v.  19,  the  words  between  (3aaiXiia  ruv 
oxj^avoiVj  a  phrase  which  appears  twice,  are  left  out  in  several 
copies.  So  also  in  Matt.  x.  23,  (psvyiTs  ilg  r^v  aXXrjv  instead  of 
(pivysTB  ilg  rrtv  ciXXriv,  xccv  In  rayrjjg  s%hi(l)^ov(Si  u^ag,  (ps'jyin  sig 
rrjv  aXXriv.  Here  editors  differ  as  to  which  was  the  original 
reading.  In  regard  to  the  final  syllable^  omission  on  account 
of  it  is  exemplified  in  Luke  vii.  21,  l^a^iaaro  rh  jSXsmiv  instead 
of  s-)(a^iGaTO  BXi'Tsiv ;  Luke  ix.  49,  sK^aXXovra  ra  daifMjvia  for 
sx^dXXovTa  daifi^ovia. 

jRepetition  is  exemplified  in  syivrjdri/xsv  v^moi,  in  place  of 
lyivri&ri/Miv  rjmoi,  1  Thes.  ii.  7 ;  Ka'xs^vaou/J,  /ajj  for  KaTsgi/aoy/A  ^, 
Matt.  xi.  23,  where  by  mistake  the  final  letter  is  written  twice. 

2.  Transcribers  heard  wrongly  or  imperfectly,  and  fell  into 
mistakes.  They  often  wrote  from  the  dictation  of  others  to 
facilitate  their  task.  Hence  they  were  misled  by  different 
words  similarly  pronounced,  or  by  different  letters  similarly 
sounded.  Here  what  is  termed  Itacism  contributed  especially 
to  the  production  of  errors.  Vowels  and  dipthongs  of  like 
sound  were  exchanged  for  one  another.  Thus  ai  is  put  for  £, 
i  for  at,  SI  for  rj,  SI  for  /,  SI  for  v,  ri  for  si,  rj  for  /,  ^  for  oi,  n  for  u, 
/  for  ri,  0  for  00,  01  for  si,  u  for  ri,  -j  for  oi,  w  for  o.  Thus  in  1 
Peter  ii.  3,  we  find  %g/eog  for  y^i^rtGrog ;  Komans  ii.  17,  'Ihs  instead 
of  SI  hi ;  in  Acts  xvii.  31,  siKou/jusyriv  for  ol-A.ouf/,ivrjv  •  Acts  v.  19j 
7]vu^s  for  ^m'^s ;  1  Corinth,  x.  13,  tjXsKpsv  instead  of  s'iXnfsv ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  60,  nsvOj  for  kvjvuj. 

3.  Transcribers  made  mistakes  through  failure  of  memory, 


CAUSES  OF   VARIOUS   READINGS.  25 

or  by  undue  reliance  upon  it.  Hence  they  transposed  words, 
and  interchanged  synonymous  ones.  Reading  over  several 
words  together,  they  miglit  have  inverted  their  order,  or 
substituted  a  term  of  similar  signification  for  one  in  the 
copy  before  them,  before  they  began  to  write  down  what 
had  been  in  their  memory.  Thus  in  Matt.  xx.  10,  y.ai  ahrot 
ava  brivdoiov  iox  ava  brivd^iov  xai  aOro/y  1  Corinth,  xii.  20,  vuvl  fov 
vvv ;  Matt.  ix.  8,  s<po(3/idr!aav  for  s^av/j^affav ;  Rev.  xvii.  17,  m 
Q^rifiara  for  o'l  Xoyoi ;  1  Peter  iii.  13,  iMifJbriTai  for  ^rfkurai. 

4.  Transcribers  made  mistakes  in  judg-ment.  They  mis- 
apprehended the  text  before  them,  and  therefore  divided  words 
badly,  misunderstood  abbreviations,  and  blundered  with  regard 
to  marginal  notes. 

Examples  of  each  of  these  may  be  furnished  in  abundance. 
As  the  most  ancient  MSS.  were  written  in  continuous  lines 
without  intervening  spaces  between  words,  it  was  natural  for 
copyists  sometimes  to  divide  the  words  erroneously.  Thus 
2  Corinth  xii.  19,  rd  hi  for  rdhi ;  Philip,  i.  1,  (suvi'xiGx/j'rToig  for 
6-jv  smffKoTotg ;  1  Corinth,  xv.  10,  ovx  hi  for  oh  xsvyi.  Abbrevia- 
tions being  employed  in  MSS.,  they  were  also  misunderstood. 
Thus  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  02  for  02,  or  vice  versa.  Glosses  in  the 
margin  and  parallels  were  also  taken  into  the  text  itself.  Ig- 
norant transcribers  perceiving  marginal  glosses  containing 
perhaps  explanations  of  words  by  their  synonyms,  imagined 
that  they  belonged  to  the  original  text,  and  took  them  into  it ; 
or,  though  they  did  not  think  so,  they  thought  the  text  might 
be  improved  by  them,  and  therefore  introduced  them.  An  in- 
stance of  this  will  be  found  in  Acts  i.  12,  where  cod.  40  reads 

after  ffajSjSdTov  'iyjjv  '()hl)V  the  words  roaovrov  oV  ro  didffTrj/Mcc,  ooov 
ouvuTO]/  'loubaTov  'rs^i'raTT^sai  h  cal3f3druj.  So  also  in  Romans  viii. 
28,  where  A,  B.  place  &  hog  after  gwi^yu.  Lachmann  takes  the 
word  into  the  text  as  genuine.  In  2  Corinth  viii.  4,  after  dykug 
several  MSS.  insert  d5S,o!.<rdai  rj/jbdg. 

In  the  gospels  the  same  occurrence  is  often  recorded  more 


26  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

fully  by  one  of  the  evangelists  than  by  another.  Sometimes 
transcribers  thought  that  the  shorter  account  is  imperfect,  and 
ought  to  be  supplied  from  the  longer.      Thus  the  words  in 

Matt.  XXvii.  35,  after  iSd'AXovrsg  vXriaov^  viz.  JVa  TXrjgoodp  TO  '^rtffiv 
vTo    rov    '7r^o(pyjrou'     dis/jjipisavro    ra   t/jydrid    fMiu    sauroTg,    xai   I'Trl   rhv 

'ilJMTieiJjov  i^o-j  sjSaXov  xXt^^ov  have  been  inserted  from  John  xix. 
24.  This  sort  of  supplement  has  been  put  to  passages  taken 
from  the  Old  Testament,  as  Mark  vi.  11,  Matt.  viii.  13,  Luke 
xvii.  36.  Supplements  from  parallel  places  of  the  evangelists 
appear  in  Matt,  xx.  28,  from  Luke  xiv.  8  ;  Matt,  xxvii.  28, 
from  Mark  xv.  17  and  John  xix.  2 ;  Mark  v.  19,  from  ii.  4. 
Sometimes  they  have  been  taken  from  the  commentaries  of  the 
fathers  and  ancient  scholia,  or  from  apocryphal  writings,  ex. 
gr.  Matt.  XX.  28,  vi.  33,  xxvii.  49 ;  Mark  xvi.  8,  14 ;  Luke 
vi.  5,  xix.  17,  xxiv.  43 ;  sometimes  from  evangelistaria  and 
lectionaries,  ex.  gr.  Matt.  vi.  13,  xiii.  23 ;  Luke  xii,  15,  21, 
xii.  4,  xiv.  24,  xi.  2,  4.  Of  such  historical  additions,  the  Cam- 
bridge MS.  (D)  alone  is  said  to  furnish  six  hundred  examples. 

These  are  the  principal  kinds  of  alterations  that  have  been 
made  in  the  text  of  the  Greek  Testament  that  may  be  classed 
under  the  head  accidental,  because  they  were  not  made  with 
the  intention  of  corrupting  the  sacred  records  or  of  falsifying 
the  text.  They  may  be  called  involuntary  errors.  They  ori- 
ginated in  part  in  the  haste  or  carelessness  of  transcribers  who 
either  lacked  sufficient  accuracy  of  manner  in  copying  MSS., 
or  sufficient  knowledge. 

(h.)  Intentional  errors. 

These  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  viz.,  changes  made 
in  the  text  for  the  purpose  of  altering  the  sense,  or  changes 
introduced  through  uncritical  officiousness.  In  the  one  case 
the  purpose  was  bad,  for  alterations  were  made  by  those  who 
knew  them  to  be  corrujjtions  ;  but  in  the  other  the  design  was 
generally  good,  for  the  alterations  were  thought  to  make  the 
text  more  perspicuous  and  better. 


CAUSES   OF   VARIOUS   READINGS.  27 

Very  few  wilful  corniptions  were  made  in  the  text  by  the 
catholic  christians  in  early  times.  They  had  great  respect 
for  the  sacred  records.  Some,  however,  of  the  early  heretics 
falsified  it  in  places.  The  charge  lies  chiefly  against  them, 
though  we  cannot  say  that  the  orthodox  were  never  guilty  of 
it,  for  the  clause  ovdi  6  vi6g  in  Mark  xiii.  32  is  omitted  in  some 
MSS. ;  and  we  learn  from  Origen  or  his  Latin  interpreter, 
that  in  Matt,  xxvii.  17,  some  ancient  copies  had  'Itjo-oDv  /3a- 
ga,S/3av,  Jesus  Barahbas.  Jesus  appears  to  have  been  left  out, 
that  the  name  might  not  be  given  to  any  wicked  person,  as 
Origen  says  ;  and  Tischendorf  has  properly  restored  it.  On 
the  whole,  the  text  of  the  Greek  Testament  has  suffered  very 
little  from  loilfid  corruption. 

In  relation  to  the  latter  class  of  changes  introduced  into  the 
text,  they  originated  in  a  desire  to  rectify,  smooth,  improve, 
or  illustrate  the  text.  Transcribers  and  others  sometimes 
thought  that  they  could  add  to  the  correctness  or  elegance  of 
the  copies  before  them.  But  they  often  attempted  what  they 
were  neither  justified  in  undertaking  nor  qualified  to  perform. 
We  can  easily  suppose  that  a  Greek  accustomed  to  the  style 
and  diction  of  the  native  Grecian  writers  might  look  upon  the 
Hebraised  language  of  the  New  Testament  as  harsh  in  many 
idioms.  The  Grammarians  of  Alexandria  would  naturally  so 
think.  Though  the  diction  is  precisely  such  as  might  be  ex- 
pected beforehand  from  writers  born  in  Judea,  yet  it  would 
appear  strange  to  many  others.  Hence  some  undertook  to 
correct  what  needed  no  correction,  with  the  view  of  softening 
harsh  idioms  and  removing  apparent  inelegancies  of  expres- 
sion. A  difficult  and  obscure  reading  was  changed  into  a 
clearer  and  more  easy  one.     The  following  are  examples : — 

The  terminations  belonging  to  the  Alexandrine  dialect 
were  removed  in  the  forms  u'xav,  riX&av,  'Inaavj  &c.  In 
Rev.  ii.  20  the  apparently  ungrammatical  rrtv  yvmhca 


28  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

^  Xsyousa  was  changed  into  tlie  regular  grammatical  construc- 
tion rriv  yvvaTxa  ....  rrjv  Xiyouffav.  So  toO  in  Rev.  iv.  1,  Xsyuv 
was  altered  into  Xsyouffa.  In  John  i.  14,  D.  has  ta^^j)  instead 
of  'jrX'/i^rig.  In  Luke  viii.  31,  we  find  'Traov/.dXsi  instead  of  Ta^s- 
xdXoxjv ;  Luke  xxiv.  39,  s/w  £///-/  a-jrog  for  sy(Jj  u/Jji  ;  Acts  XX. 
16,  i'lri  for  riv ;  Matt.  XV.  32,  s^/xs^ag  rgs?£  for  rjfLi^ai  r^sTg  /  Luke 
i."  64,  dvsoj^drj  rh  ffro/Jt^a  auTou  'rta^ay^^iJjOL  xai  sXv&ri  6  8ig,u,og  r^g 
yX'JjffgTjg  aurov  in  two  MSS.  for  dn<J)'/Jr\  rh  ffro^a  avrou  'Traga- 
X^l^^  "«'  ^  yXZisaa  avrou.  A  tautology  was  removed  in 
Mark  xii.  23,  sv  rfj  dvaardffsi  instead  of  h  rfi  dvacrdsn  orav 
dmiSTMSiy.  In  like  manner,  a  pleonasm  was  taken  from  the  text 
in  some  copies  by  omitting  r/,  2  Corinth,  xii.  6.  In  Acts 
xxvi.  3  smerdfjt^svog  was  inserted  after  fidXiga  to  make  the  con- 
struction easier.  So  too  1  Peter  ii.  20,  the  unusual  word  xoXa- 
(pii^o/jbsvoi  was  altered  into  KoXai^6/j.sm  in  various  MSS. 

Historical,  geographical,  archaeological  and  doctrinal  diffi- 
culties which  caused  perplexity  were  removed  from  the  text, 
and  other  expressions  introduced.  So  in  Mark  ii.  26  some 
MSS.  omit  the  words  Iti  'AjSidda^  tov  d^y^nssMiy  others  omit 
only  rov  d^^iigsug^  others  read  '  AjSi/jbiXix  for  '  AjSidda.^.  In  Matt, 
xxvii.  9  'lsg£,a/ou  is  left  out,  or  changed  into  Za;)^ag/oi>.  In 
John  xix.  14  w^a  r^irri  is  put  for  Mga  'hrri.  In  John  i.  28 
I3ridal3a^a  for  (3ri&avia  /  Matt.  viii.  28,  Ts^yiffrivuv  for  Tadaorivciv 
was  often  put.  In  John  vii.  39,  to  ojcrw  yd^  rjv  Tvsufjiya  aywv 
some  copies  add  It'  a-jroTg,  or  dsdo/j^hov  or  dod'sv.  In  Matt.  v.  22 
g/x^  is  omitted  by  many  authorities,  perhaps  rightly.  The 
usual  reading  in  Acts  xx.  28  is  6iou  instead  of  zu^lov.  In 
1  John  V.  7  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  were  added  to  the 
genuine  text. 

The  liturgical  use  of  the  New  Testament  gave  rise  to  ad- 
ditions and  omissions.  Thus  6  '^aoug  was  frequently  inter- 
polated, as  in  Matt.  iv.  12.  The  doxology  of  the  Lord's 
prayer,  Matt.  vi.  13,  was  taken  from  a  similar  source.     So  too 


CAUSES   OF   VARIOUS   READINGS.  2 J) 

in  xiii.  23,  the  phrase  6  lyjjiv  ura,  ■/..  r.  X.  was  added.  '  a>m-^v  at 
the  end  of  books  was  often  appended.  In  Acts  iii.  11  tou 
ad'iVTog  %wXoy,  and  XX.  16,  s-KPin  were  taken  from  lectionaries 
and  wrongly  put  into  the  text. 

In  addition  to  all  that  has  been  said  on  this  subject,  it 
should  be  remarked,  that  the  MS.  itself  from  which  a  tran- 
scriber copied  may  have  been  occasionally  effaced  in  letters 
and  words,  or  illegible.  Here  the  fault  of  failing  to  reproduce 
an  accurate  text  was  not  attributable  to  the  copyist,  but  to  the 
MS.  he  had  before  him. 


CHAPTER   IV. 


HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT    ITSELF. 
THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

Having  noticed  the  causes  of  alteration  in  tlie  original  text, 
we  proceed  to  describe  it  in  the  various  phases  through  which 
it  has  passed. 

Although  no  definite  time  can  be  assigned  to  the  close  of 
the  canon,  and  therefore  no  division  in  the  history  of  the  New 
Testament  text  can  be  made  by  means  of  an  event  so  impor- 
tant, yet  the  collecting  of  the  books  into  a  volume  must  neces- 
sarily be  touched  at  various  points  of  the  description.  The 
gathering  together  of  the  separate  epistles  and  gospels  had  an 
influence  on  the  purity  and  preservation  of  the  original  text. 
We  have  therefore  deemed  it  advisable  to  say  a  few  words 
on  the  canon  before  the  history  of  the  text  itself.  In  this  way, 
it  will  be  better  apprehended  than  if  it  had  been  incorporated 
with  the  general  discussion  of  the  whole  subject.  The  mode 
in  which  the  canon  was  formed,  and  the  time  at  which  it  was 
closed,  will  be  more  clearly  understood  than  if  it  had  been 
mixed  up  with  the  history  of  the  text  itself. 

In  examining  the  state  of  the  text  before  the  close  of  the 
canon,  we  are  deficient  in  the  knowledge  of  well  accredited 
facts.  History  fails  in  assisting  to  bring  to  light  the  changes 
which  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  underwent  in  regard 


THE   CANON.  31 

to  their  text,  at  the  earliest  period.  How  tliey  were  preserved 
during  the  first  two  centuries — witli  what  care  they  were 
copied — how  often  they  were  transcribed — with  what  degree 
of  veneration  they  were  looked  upon  by  different  churches  and 
christians — how  much  authority  was  attributed  to  them — by 
what  test  they  were  kept  apart  from  similar  writings  afterwards 
termed  apocryplml ;  these  are  interesting  questions  to  which 
precise  and  definite  answers  cannot  be  given. 

Let  us  first  inquire  how  and  when  the  canon  was  closed. 

We  think  it  right  to  omit  all  allusion  to  a  passage  in  2 
Peter  iii.  16,  where  the  writer  speaks  of  the  epistles  of  Paul, 
in  a  way,  as  some  suppose,  which  indicates  that  all  or  the 
greater  part  of  them  had  been  collected  together  at  that  time. 
This  passage  can  be  regarded  as  containing  the  first  certain 
notice  of  the  existence  of  a  collection  of  several  New  Testa- 
ment writings  only  by  assuming  the  epistle  in  question  to  have 
been  really  written  by  the  apostle  Peter.  There  are  circum- 
stances however  connected  with  the  fact  indicated  in  the  words 
that  tend  to  throw  suspicion  on  the  authenticity  of  the  epistle. 
At  all  events,  we  must  not  assume  the  apostolic  origin  of  the 
epistle  at  this  preliminary  stage  of  the  inquiry,  and  deduce 
from  it  the  existence  of  an  early  collection  in  the  time  of 
Peter. 

Neither  can  anything  be  properly  inferred  from  the  charac- 
ter of  the  fourth  gospel  as  to  John  having  the  other  gospels 
before  him.  That  he  had  them  before  him  when  he  wrote  it, 
or  that  he  himself  made  any  collection  of  the  New  Testament 
books,  is  very  improbable. 

It  is  likely  that  the  first  attempt  at  a  collection  began 
with  the  epistles,  in  the  northern  parts  of  Asia  Minor.  Mar- 
cion's  list  is  the  first  we  hear  of  in  history.  It  is  now  impos- 
sible to  tell  whether  any  collection  had  preceded  his  time. 
We  learn  however  that  he  had  a  collection  consisting  of  ten 
Pauline  epistles  called  6  a'TtogoXog ;   to    which   he  added  the 


32  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

vjayysXiov,  apparently  a  mutilated  gospel  of  Luke,  Bertlioldt 
thinks  that  the  6  dTogoXo;  had  previously  existed  in  Pontus, 
and  that  Marcion  merely  adopted  it  and  made  it  known  more 
extensively,  placing  with  it  his  sua.y'ysXiov.  This  was  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  Repairing  from  Asia  Minor 
to  Rome,  Marcion  spread  a  knowledge  of  the  collection  in 
Italy.  Thus  the  ocTrogoXog  was  probably  made  in  Asia  Minor, 
being  the  earliest  attempt  to  bring  together  a  number  of  the 
sacred  records  of  Christianity  into  one  volume.  We  must  re- 
collect however  that  tJie  appellation  was  not  used  so  early. 
The  name  6  acr&goX&s  was  of  later  origin.  It  comprehended, 
as  has  been  stated,  ten  Pauline  epistles,  viz.  one  to  the  Romans, 
two  to  the  Corinthians,  one  to  the  Galatians,  one  to  the 
Ephesians,  one  to  the  Philippians,  one  to  the  Colossians,  two 
to  the  Thessalonians,  and  one  to  Philemon. 

From  Pontus  and  Galatia  this  original  collection  must 
have  spread  into  other  parts,  such  as  the  western  districts  of 
Asia  Minor.  There,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  it  was  immediately 
enlarged  with  additional  books  or  epistles.  About  Ephesus 
and  Smyrna,  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  John's  gospel 
and  his  first  epistle,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  with  the  gospels 
of  Matthew  and  Mark  which  must  have  circulated  in  those 
parts,  were  probably  put  into  the  collection.  Hence  the  shay- 
y'iXiov  received  three  other  gospels — the  ktosoXoc,  five  other 
epistles  or  books.  In  like  manner,  the  first  epistle  of  Peter 
was  attached ;  since  Irenaeus  had  brought  to  Lyons  from 
western  Asia,  about  A.D.  1 70,  the  slayysXiov  and  ocTrSgoXos^ 
the  latter  of  which  contained  the  epistle  in  question. 

In  Syria  the  collection  received  two  new  books,  viz.  the 
epistle  of  James  and  that  to  the  Hebrews,  as  is  shewn  by  the 
old  Syriac  version  or  Peshito. 

In  Egypt,  the  dTogoXog  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus  embraced 
the  same  books  as  that  of  Irenaeus,  viz.  thirteen  epistles  of 
Paul,  the  Acts,  the  first  epistle  of  John,  and  the  first  of  Peter. 


THE   CANON.  33 

In  northern  Africa,  the  suayysXiov  and  d'rogoXog  Avere  of  the 
same  extent  as  in  the  localities  represented  by  Irenaeus  and 
Clement ;  a  fact  we  learn  from  Tertullian. 

In  Rome,  the  d-rogoAog  of  Marcion  was  enlarged  merely  with 
the  addition  of  the  epistles  to  Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  Others  maT/  have  been  admitted,  for  several 
parts  of  the  catalogue  or  fragment  on  the  canon  published  by 
Maratori  are  very  obscure,  and  conjectures  as  to  the  probable 
meaning  of  them  have  discovered  in  it  the  first  epistle  of  Peter 
and  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  But  the  case  is  more  than 
doubtful  regarding  the  epistle  to  the  Plebrews.  And  though 
two  epistles  of  John,  the  epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse, 
are  mentioned  in  that  Roman  catalogue,  they  are  placed  on  a 
level  with  certain  apocryphal  writings,  such  as  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon.  Thus  though  others  are  spoken  of,  and  though 
they  were  even  read  in  public  in  the  churches,  they  were  sepa- 
rated from  the  regular  list  which  we  know  to  have  been  made 
up  of  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
The  same  rank  and  authority  were  not  assigned  to  them. 
Yet  soon  after  the  catalogue  was  made,  the  first  epistles  of 
Peter  and  John  were  put  into  the  dTogoXog  in  the  churches 
of  Italy,  since  Origen  affirms  forty  years  after,  that  the  whole 
catholic  church  received  the  four  gospels,  the  Acts,  thirteen 
epistles  of  Paul,  with  the  first  epistles  of  Peter  and  John. 

Such  was  the  progress  that  had  been  made  towards  a  com- 
plete collection  of  the  New  Testament  books,  or  in  other  words, 
the  formation  of  the  Christian  canon,  about  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  except  in  the  old  Syrian  church,  which  had 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  that  of  James  besides. 

Before  this  time,  or  about  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, the  two  collections,  viz.  shayy'sXiov  and  d-rogoXog  had 
been  put  together  under  one  name,  vj  xaivr,  diad/jxri,  Novum 
Testamentum.  Thus  Tertullian,  in  his  treatise  against  Mar- 
cion,   applies  Novum   Testamentum  to  the  whole    collection, 

VOL.    II,  D 


34  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

Yet  both  he  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  speak  of  the  two  as 
separate  parts  of  a  whole.  Even  Origen  does  so  at  a  later 
period.  Towards  the  middle  of  the  third  centmy,  the  two  ap- 
pellations disappear  from  the  face  of  history,  giving  place  to 
the  one  general  title. 

As  far  then  as  the  very  meagre  evidence  we  possess  will 
enable  us  to  anive  at  a  conclusion  on  the  subject,  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  we  have  specified  were  known,  circu- 
lated, and  highly  regarded  in  different  countries  during  the 
first  half  of  the  third  century  as  one  collection,  and  with  a 
general  title.  The  parts  now  belonging  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  were  not  usually  included  in  the  collection  at  that 
time  were,  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Apocalypse,  the 
second  epistle  of  Peter,  that  of  Jude,  with  the  second  and  third 
epistles  of  John.  These  had  been  known  and  quoted,  pro- 
bably looked  upon  as  authentic  and  canonical  by  some  in  all 
countries  where  they  were  circulated ;  but  they  had  not  at- 
tained the  position  of  the  rest.  They  were  not  commonly  re- 
garded as  of  like  authority. 

With  the  exception  of  the  six  writings  just  mentioned,  the 
remainder  were  appealed  to  as  sacred^  inspired^  as  the  ride  and 
standard  of  Christian  truth.  Hence  we  may  say  that  the 
canon  was  virtually  formed  in  the  early  part  of  the  third  cen- 
tury. We  use  the  word  virtually,  because  at  that  time  it  was 
not  fully  2in.di  finally  settled  as  to  all  its  parts.  Hesitation  and 
doubt  still  existed  about  some  portions  now  included  in  the 
New  Testament.  Six  books  or  epistles  were  not  established 
in  the  public  estimation  as  inspired.  The  inferior  position 
assigned  to  them  arose  doubtless  from  different  causes.  It  was 
owing  to  the  remoteness  of  readers  from  the  locality  where  a 
particular  book  first  appeared — to  the  nature  of  the  book  itself, 
its  character,  peculiarities,  and  scope — to  the  subjective  views 
of  leading  fathers  in  determining  the  claims  of  a  work  to  be  of 
divine  origin.     There  is  little  doubt  that  some  fathers  enter- 


THE   CANON.  35 

tained  suspicion  of  some  books,  which  others  did  not  share. 
Hence  the  canon  was  not  closed  at  the  period  we  speak  of. 
The  great  Ibody  of  it  was  fixed ;  but  a  few  epistles  had  not 
been  permanently  attached. 

The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse  were  fully 
received  into  the  collection  very  soon  after  the  middle  of  the 
third  century.  This  was  done,  as  might  be  readily  supposed, 
earlier  in  some  places  than  in  others.  Indeed  some  members 
of  the  Greek  and  oriental  church  had  admitted  the  former  as 
canonical  even  prior  to  that  time — a  treatment  of  it  which 
speedily  became  general.  The  prevailing  practice  was  to  place 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  among  the  Pauline  epistles  not  long 
after  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  throughout  the  Greek 
church.  The  Apocalypse  was  not  so  favourably  received  in 
the  same  quarter.  Yet  it  was  deemed  canonical  by  those  who 
decided  on  historical  rather  than  doctrinal  grounds.  Unfortu- 
nately however  they  were  the  fewer  in  number. 

When  Eusebius  wrote  his  ecclesiastical  history,  the  Apo- 
calypse had  not  been  admitted  into  the  canon  by  many  be- 
longing to  the  oriental  and  Greek  church.  But  he  quietly 
puts  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  among  the  Pauline ;  indicating 
the  prevailing  sentiments  respecting  it.  Thus  in  the  first  half 
of  the  fourth  century,  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the 
Apocalypse  were  acknowledged  as  of  equal  authority  with  the 
other  books  of  the  New  Testament  by  the  Christians  of  the 
oriental  and  Greek  church ;  although  several  still  rejected  the 
latter. 

In  the  Western  and  Latin  church  the  case  stood  differently. 
There  the  Apocalypse  was  generally  admitted  as  canonical. 
This  follows  from  the  mode  in  which  Jerome  names  it.  In 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  it  was  received  as  apostolic 
in  the  west.  But  it  was  otherwise  there  with  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  which  was  not  commonly  ranked  among  the 
canonical  books  before  the  time  of  Jerome. 


36  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

From  these  remarks  on  the  reception  of  the  Apocalypse 
and  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  among  the  early  Christians,  it 
appears  that  the  collection  already  established  in  the  third 
century  had  been  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  both,  in  the  first 
half  of  the  fom:th  century — of  the  Apocalypse  in  the  west 
generally,  in  the  oriental  and  Greek  church  partially — of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  oriental  and  Greek  church  uni- 
versally, but  very  sparingly  in  the  Latin  church. 

About  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  the  epistles  of  James, 
Jude,  second  of  Peter,  second  and  third  of  John,  which  Euse- 
bius,  at  the  beginning  of  it,  placed  among  the  o-o-k  Ivdid9rixa 
(not  included  among  the  canonical)  generally  appear  in  the 
list.  They  must  have  obtained  a  sure  place  there  by  the  ope- 
ration of  powerful  but  silently  working  clauses.  Slowly  was 
their  credit  finally  established  by  injiuences  prior  to  the  council 
of  Nice  A.D.  325.  All  the  present  books  are  enumerated  as 
canonical  in  the  Acts  of  the  council  of  Laodicea  about  360 
A.D.  This  was  the  state  of  opinion  in  the  Greek  church.  In 
the  Latin  church  also,  all  the  writings  had  fixed  themselves  in 
the  general  opinion  as  canonical,  during  the  fourth  century,  as 
is  shewn  by  the  Acts  of  the  council  of  Hippo  a.d.  393. 
Hence  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  or  soon  after, 
the  entire  collection  was  definitely  fixed  as  the  canon,  %avm. 
The  canon  was  closed  about  that  time.  It  is  true  that  we  hear 
of  doubts  and  suspicions  afterwards  in  regard  to  some  portions. 
Some  were  still  rejected  by  writers  here  and  there  in  the 
Catholic  church.  Speculative  and  critical  men  gave  expression 
to  unfavourable  opinions  of  certain  parts  of  the  New  Testament 
in  succeeding  centuries.  But  the  scepticism  of  indwiduals 
does  not  affect  the  close  of  the  canon  as  a  historical  fact. 

The  preceding  observations  shew  that  the  formation  of 
the  New  Testament  canon  was  gradual.  The  collection  was 
not  made  by  one  man,  one  council,  at  one  time,  or  in  one  place. 
The  adherents  of  the  Christian  religion  in  different  lands  came 


THE   CANON.  37 

to  agree  in  the  same  conclusion  progressively^  and  by  tacit 
consent.  They  did  so  independently  to  a  great  extent,  in 
countries  remote  from  one  another.  They  judged  by  internal 
evidence,  by  tradition,  by  the  fact  of  the  writers  being  apostles 
or  apostolic  men.  Some  relied  on  ono.  criterion,  some  on  an- 
other ;  the  majority  perhaps  on  ecclesiastical  tradition ;  the  most 
reflecting  and  critical  on  internal  evidence.  Slowly  and  surely 
did  they  arrive  at  the  entire  separation  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
from  the  spurious  imitations  which  were  then  current.  And  in 
the  result  of  their  judgment  modern  scliolars  commonly  ac- 
quiesce. 

Having  thus  considered  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  time 
about  which  the  canon  was  closed,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  not 
sufficiently  definite  or  fixed  to  serve  as  a  resting-point  in  the 
history  of  the  text.  We  cannot  look  upon  it  as  a  convenient 
landmark  for  our  present  purpose.  Hence  we  will  not  inquire 
what  may  be  discovered  as  to  the  state  of  the  text  before  the 
books  were  finally  collected.  We  will  not  take  the  period 
marked  by  the  close  of  the  canon  and  ask,  is  it  possible  to  gather 
from  early  writers  what  was  the  condition  of  the  text,  whether 
it  had  been  accurately  preserved,  how  far  it  had  been  kept  pure. 

There  is  difficulty  in  distinguishing  periods  in  the  history 
of  the  text,  without  presupposing  a  theory  of  recensions  or  a 
classification,  which  it  is  better  to  avoid  at  present.  And  yet 
the  history  of  the  text,  as  hitherto  treated,  has  consisted  of 
little  more  than  the  speculative  views  of  ingenious  men.  We 
might,  for  example,  distinguish  the  period  of  the  text's  disor- 
dered condition,  and  that  of  its  revised  state ;  but  we  should 
convey  thereby  an  erroneous  impression,  and  sanction  some 
such  system  as  that  of  Hug  or  Griesbach.  There  was  a  time 
when  greater  attention  was  given  to  the  text;  when  more 
persons  applied  correcting  hands  to  it ;  when  professed  critics 
and  grammarians  appeared  who  handled  it  more  or  less  freely. 
But  such  time  was  not  coincident  in  different  countries ;  and 


38  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

in  some  it  never  existed.  Nor  had  it  a  palpable  beginning  in 
any  region.  Persons  here  and  there  in  different  lands,  and  at 
various  times,  made  what  they  considered  corrections  in  a  few 
passages  of  the  copies  which  they  had ;  but  at  no  period  was 
there  a  general  recension.  A  few  persons  onay  have  revised  several 
copies ;  as  will  be  considered  hereafter ;  but  the  influence  of 
their  limited  labours  was  insignificant  amid  the  multitude  of 
current  MSS.  and  versions  taken  from  the  original. 

Seeing  tlien  that  we  have  no  good  resting  place  in  the 
history  of  the  text,  we  may  terminate  the  first  division  of  it 
with  Origen.  It  will  be  most  convenient  to  take,  first,  the 
period  till  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  not  because  any 
very  marked  or  decided  change  in  the  text  then  took  place, 
but  because  some  critics  of  note  have  supposed  it  an  important 
era.  Till  then  they  have  imagined  a  chaotic  state  of  the  text, 
uncorrected,  unrevised,  confused,  corrupt;  and  afterwards  a 
new  phase  and  form  of  it  in  various  lands  under  several  dis- 
tinguished men.  There  was  first,  as  they  conjecture,  the 
absence  of  all  revision ;  then  the  presence  and  effects  of  recen- 
sions in  different  countries,  which  influenced  the  general  aspect 
of  the  text  everywhere. 


CHAPTER  Y. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXT  TILL  THE  MIDDLE  OF 
THE  THIRD  CENTURY. 

The  autographs  of  tlie  New  Testament  books  were  soon  lost. 
The  material  to  which  the  sacred  writers  consigned  their  in- 
valuable compositions  was  frail  and  perishable.  If  indeed  by 
autograph  be  understood  epistles  or  gospels  written  by  the 
hands  of  apostles  or  apostolic  men,  such  had  no  existence,  at 
least  in  part.  We  know  that  Paul  generally  employed  an 
amanuensis.  He  merely  dictated  a  number  of  his  letters.  A 
few  he  wrote  with  his  own  hand,  as  the  epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians :  "  Ye  see  how  large  a  letter  I  have  written  unto  you 
with  mine  own  hand."  To  those  which  were  simply  dictated 
he  himself  appended  the  salutation — "  The  salutation  of  Paul 
with  mine  own  hand,  which  is  the  token  in  every  epistle ; 
so  I  write."  But  epistles  thus  dictated  and  accredited  as 
authentic  had  the  same  value  as  proper  autographs.  They 
were  in  truth  identical  with  them.  Hence  there  is  no  use  in 
distinguishing  between  idiographs  and  autographs. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  no  trace  of  these  autographs 
or  primitive  exemplars  can  be  found  in  early  history.  Writers 
living  very  near  the  time  of  apostles  do  not  speak  of  or  appeal 
to  them.  In  the  course  of  the  second  century,  if  not  at  the 
end  of  the  first,  most  of  them  had  probably  disappeared.  How 
or  where  they  were  kept,  how  long  each  lasted,  whether  they 


40  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

were  worn  by  degrees  and  repeated  handling,  or  lost  by 
accident,  are  questions  to  which  no  answer  can  be  given. 

Yet  some  have  fancied  that  early  traces  of  their  existence 
are  discernible.  Thus  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philadelphians 
(chapter  viii.)  Ignatius  refers  to  ra  agyjx'ta  i.e.  jSllSXia^  which 
expression  has  sometimes  been  explained,  autographs.  The 
whole  passage  runs  thus  : — "  Because  I  have  heard  some  say, 
unless  I  find  it  in  the  ancient  writings,  1  will  not  believe  it  in 
the  gospel;  and  when  I  said  to  them  it  is  written  [in  the 
gospel],  they  answered  me,  it  is  found  written  before  [in  the 
ancient  writings]."  Here  both  the  proper  reading  and  the 
sense  are  uncertain.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Iv  roTg  d^^aloig  or 
Jv  ToTg  a^yjioig  should  be  considered  the  authentic  expression 
of  Ignatius.  But  it  is  generally  agreed  that  both  refer  directly 
or  indirectly  to  the  Old  Testament ^  and  not  to  the  autographs 
of  the  New.  Indeed  the  context  plainly  shews  that  the  two 
Testaments  are  contrasted,  and  that  the  persons  whom  the 
writer  censures  were  unwilling  to  admit  the  New  except  so  far 
as  it  was  corroborated  by  the  Old.* 

There  is  also  a  passage  in  Tertullian's  works  which  has 
been  referred  to  the  autographs  of  the  apostolical  epistles.  He 
speaks  oi authentic  letters, authenticae  literae,8i.n  expression  which 
has  been  supposed  to  mean  the  epistles  themselves  written  by 
apostles  or  at  least  by  an  amanuensis  from  their  dictation,  and 
sent  to  the  churches.f  But  it  is  quite  arbitrary  to  take  it  in 
this  sense.  Tertullian  lived  in  a  country  where  thQ  sacred 
writings  were  circulated  and  read  in  one  or  more  Latin  trans- 

*  See  Griesbach,  Historia  textus  Graeci  epistolar.  Paulin.  sect.  ii. 
p.  G6  in  his  Opuscula  Academica  edited  by  Gabler,  yoI.  ii.  p.  66,  et  seq.  ; 
and  Gabler's  Praefatio,  p.  26,  et  seq. 

t  "  Age  jam  qui  voles  curiositatem  melius  exercere  in  negotio  salutis 
tuae,  percurre  ecclesias  apostolicas  apud  quas  ipsae  adhuc  cathedrae 
Apostolorum  suis  locis  praesident,  apud  quas  ipsae  authenticae  literae 
eorum  recitantur,  sonantes  vocem  et  praesentantes  faciem  uniuscujusque. 
Proxime  est  tibi  Achaia,  habes  Corinthum.    Si  non  longe  es  a  Macedonia, 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  41 

lations.  In  contrast  with  such  copies,  he  speaks  of  authentic 
epistles,  ^'.  e.  copies  of  the  epistles  preserved  uncomiptecl  and 
genuine.  A  greater  reputation  belonged  to  the  churches 
founded  bj  apostles  themselves,  or  to  those  which  had  received 
epistles  fi-om  apostles.  Greater  credit  was  given  to  the  copies 
they  possessed  because  they  were  better  preserved.  Hence 
Tertullian  refers  such  as  wished  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the 
doctrines  of  salvation  out  of  authentic  sources,  to  the  holy 
archives  of  the  churches  at  Corinth,  Philippi,  Thessalonica, 
Ephesus,  Rome,  &c.  because  in  these  churches  the  apostolic 
letters  were  to  be  met  with  in  their  best  accredited  state,  and 
not  because  the  autographs  were  there.  Of  course  these  copies 
were  thought  to  be  pure  and  imcoj^rujjted.  In  that  sense 
they  were  authentic  as  opposed  to  adulterated  (adulteratum). 
Bertholdt  and  others  explain  the  epithet  to  mean  G^^eek  copies, 
but  though  the  word  will  bear  this  sense  in  itself,  yet  many 
reasons  might  be  given  against  it  in  the  passage  before  us.  It 
has  been  clearly  and  copiously  shewn  by  Griesbach*  that 
authenticae  literae  in  this  place  cannot  mean  Greek  copies  or 
autograi^hs^  but  genuine;  and  he  is  followed  by  Gabler  and 
Hug.  It  is  certain  that  this  father  did  not  intend  the  auto- 
graphs, else  he  would  have  appealed  to  them  in  his  wi-itings 
against  Marcion,  and  so  saved  himself  the  trouble  of  conduct- 
ing a  lengthened  argumentation.  A  single  reference  to  the 
originals  themselves  would  have  'proved  Marcion's  falsifications. 
But  Tertullian  did  not  terminate  the  controversy  in  this 
manner ;  and  therefore  it  is  fairly  presumed  that  the  auto- 
graphs were  not  known  to  be  in  existence.  The  same  remark 
may  be  applied  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origeu,  and  other 

habes  Philippos,  habes  Thessalonicenses.  Si  potes  in  Asiam  tendere, 
habes  Ephesum.  Si  autem  Italiae  adjaces,  habes  Romam,  unde  nobis 
quoque  auctoritas  praesto  est." — De  Praescriptt.  Haerett.  c.  36. 

*  See  Griesbacb's  Opuscula  Academica  edited  by  Gabler,  vol.  ii.  p.  69, 
and  Praefatio,  p.  31. 


42  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

fathers.  In  their  disputations  with  heretics  they  never  dream 
of  appealing  to  what  must  have  been  an  infallible  tribunal. 
They  reason  and  adduce  proofs,  as  if  they  knew  nothing  of 
autographs. 

The  writings  of  the  apostolic  fathers  furnish  little  help  in 
judging  of  the  state  of  the  text  in  their  day,  because  they  are 
chiefly  occupied  with  the  practical  aspect  of  religion,  and  have 
a  hortatory  character.  Hence,  though  phrases  and  expressions 
occur  in  them  which  coincide  with  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  they  are  mere  reminiscences  of  the  latter.  Very 
rarely  do  these  fathers  quote  literally  ;  for  literal  citation  was 
unnecessary  for  their  purpose,  and  incongruous  with  their  habits 
of  mind. 

Let  us  glance  at  all  in  them  that  has  a  bearing  on  our 
present  subject.  Hernias  occasionally  touches  the  expressions 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  but  does  not  quote  any. 
There  is  not  a  single  passage  which  contains  a  literal  citation. 

Clement  of  Kome  carefully  extracts  passages  from  both 
Testaments,  yet  he  very  seldom  has  quotations  that  can  be 
compared  with  the  New.  He  does  not  cite  a  single  place 
accurately  or  literally.  He  was  better  acquainted  with  the 
Jewish  than  the  Christian  records. 

In  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  there  is  but  one  citation  from 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  is  made  in  a  form 
coinciding  with  the  reading  of  the  Vatican  MS.  (B.)  viz.  Tai^r/ 
ahovvri  6i  dibov,  omitting  the  article  before  the  participle  (Luke 
vi.  30). 

Ignatius  affords  very  small  assistance  to  the  critic,  because 
he  does  not  so  much  quote  as  allude  to  the  words  of  the  Chris- 
tian records.  He  never  makes  a  verbal  citation.  He  repeats 
from  memory.  This  is  seen  in  the  following  places,  where 
the  most  prominent  and  nearest  allusions  to  the  Greek  text 
occur : — 

'()  y^o)^o)v  •x^oi^iiro.     See  Matt.  xix.  12. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  43 

Bi^wXTiG/Mvov  birh  'ludnou,  'ha  'zXrjBMdfi  'Traffa  dixaiosvr/^  ut'  avrov^ 
Matt.  iii.  15. 

nsol-s^rjij,a  TO  S/J.OV  rrvsv/z^a  rou  gruv^ou,  6  igiv  dxavdaXov  ro?g  acr/ff- 
rouffiv,  YiiJjTv  5s  GouTTjPia  '/.ai  (^(ajtj  aiujviog'  crou  ffopogy  crou  su^rirrig  /  toxj 
■/.avy^ijCig  ruv  XsyofJi^S]/c>Jv  avvsruvy  1  Coi'inth.  i.  18,  &C. 

^avi^ov  TO  bsvdsov  anro  tov  xagcou  auro-j,  Matt.  xii.  33. 

Uos-Trov  I'va  h  /Mia  vTOTwyfj  '^ts  -/.aTrj^TifffMsvoi  tui  avTui  vo'i  xai  tt] 
a\jT7\   y)/(jj[jL,ri^  xai  to  auTO  X'syi^Ts  'xdvTsg  ts^i  tou  uutov^   1    Corinth. 

i.  10. 

fl>o6\iiiMog  yhov  ug  o  'o<ptg  iv  ccTagiv,  xai  dx's^aiog  ijffii  'rs^KfTsed, 
Matt.  X.  16.* 

Polycarp  commonly  quotes  loosely,  of  which  perhaps  his 
omission  of  o-l  before  KXri^ovo/Mriffouffiv  in  1  Corinth,  vi.  10  is  an 
example,  though  he  may  have  omitted  it  because  it  was 
wanting  in  his  copy,  since  very  ancient  authorities  do  not 
read  it.  He  has  hovrever  some  citations  which  we  may  com- 
pare with  the  present  text.  In  a  few  cases  we  learn  what 
was  in  his  copy.  Thus  he  cites  Acts  ii.  24,  Sv  sysi^sv  6  khg 
■\-ljsag  Tag  ojdivag  tou  ahou.  Here  we  cannot  suppose  that  he 
really  had  in  his  copy  'iyn^iv  instead  of  dv'iOTriG-v.  He  con- 
founded the  one  with  the  other.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that 
he  had  toZ  adou  for  tou  davdTouj  since  many  ancient  authorities 
have  the  same,  such  as  D.,  the  Vulgate,  Syriac,  &c. 

In  1  Timothy  vi.  7  for  di^Xov  oti  the  received  reading,  this 
father  has  a>.>.',  which  Augustine  and  other  authorities  also  read. 

In  1  John  iv.  3  he  reads.  Tag  Ik  civ  /myj  6//,oXoyf}  'l/i<rouv  Xqistov 

iv    (Sa^xi    sX'nXudhai,    dvTi^^idTog    sStiv.        Here    is    sXrjXudBvai    for 

sXrjXudoTa,  just  as  in  the  former  verse  the  same  infinitive  occm's 

for  the  same  participle  in  Theodoret.f 

In  a  few  extant  fragments  of  Papias  are  quoted  1  Corinth. 

XV.  25,  26 ;  and  after  an  interval  of  some  verses,  one  part  of 

the  27th  verse  and  the  28th.     The  citation  agrees  very  nearly 

*  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf's  first  Leipzig  edition,  p.  25. 
t  Ibid,  p.  25. 


44  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

with  the  received  text,  the  only  difference  being  that  Papias 
has  r-oVs  airo's,  as  in  many  ancient  authorities,  for  r&Vs  xat  ahroc,  ; 
and  6  v'log  is  omitted,  as  it  is  by  many  of  the  fathers.* 

With  regard  to  Justin  Martyr,  it  is  difficult  to  form  a  defi- 
nite conclusion  as  to  the  state  of  the  Greek  text  before  him. 
We  believe  that  he  had  our  present  gospels,  and  alludes  to 
them  under  the  title  of  d7ro//.i'?;/;t.ov£u/Aara  ruv  avorSToXuv.  The 
weight  of  evidence  is  decidedly  favourable  to  that  conclusion, 
notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  recently  written  against  it 
by  the  Tubingen  school.  But  Justin  has  cited  very  much 
from  memory.  He  has  not  been  careful  about  the  words. 
In  passages  descriptive  of  the  life  and  actions  of  Christ  he  differs 
widely  from  our  present  canonical  gospels,  either  relating  what 
they  do  not  contain,  or  speaking  of  facts  in  a  different  manner. 
Where  he  refers  to  the  sayings  and  precepts  of  Christ  he  comes 
nearer  the  text,  but  does  not  commonly  agree  with  it.  In 
Matthew  and  Luke  only  it  has  been  ascertained  that  he  coin- 
cides with  various  witnesses  in  opposition  to  the  received  text, 
and  often  so  as  to  present  improbable  readings.  He  has  three 
varieties  of  reading,  consisting  in  the  omission  of  certain  Greek 
words,  the  interchange  of  terms,  and  their  transposition. 
Hence  he  seldom  agrees  with  the  characteristic  readings  of 
what  has  been  called  the  Alexandrine  family  or  recension,  or 
even  with  the  Constantinopolitan.  For  this  fact  it  is  easy  to 
account,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  pages. 

From  the  apostolical  fathers  to  which  we  have  referred,  no 
certain  conclusion  can  be  drawn  respecting  the  state  of  the 
text  during  the  period  which  immediately  succeeded  that  of 
the  apostles.  Little  can  be  learned  from  them,  except  that  in 
those  days  the  Christians  were  not  anxious  about  the  purity  of 
the  text.  They  had  not  much  reverence  for  the  letter.  They 
venerated  the  spirit  more  than  the  words.  The  latter  were  not 
so  holy  in  their  eyes  as  the  meaning  conveyed  in  them.  Hence 
*  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf  s  first  Leipzig  edition,  p.  26. 


HISTORY   UF   THE   TEXT.  45 

alterations  took  place  wliicli  would  not  have  been  made  in  other 
circumstances.  Had  they  been  studious  about  preserving  the 
ipsissima  verba  they  would  hardly  have  allowed  the  autographs 
to  disappear  so  soon.  Their  copies  therefore  had  several 
diversities,  and  they  did  not  think  of  revising  them.  They 
contributed  indeed  to  those  diversities  by  quoting  loosely,  by 
not  adhering  to  tlie  very  terms  of  the  New  Testament  and 
their  proper  position,  by  trusting  to  memory,  by  negligence. 
But  when  we  proceed  to  examine  a  class  of  writers  later  than 
the  apostolical  fathers  who  were  led  to  treat  extensively  of 
scriptural  subjects  and  doctrines — when  we  come  down  to 
authors  who  wrote  after  130  \vq  begin  to  observe  more  import- 
ant and  extensive  diversities  in  the  text  than  those  which  had 
appeared  before.  This  is  observable  in  Justin  Martyr,  who 
might  perhaps  have  been  more  appropriately  reserved  till  the 
present  section,  though  his  habits  of  handling  scripture  are 
such  as  render  his  works  of  comparatively  little  utility. 
Before  the  year  127  the  history  oi  prosper  diversities  in  the  text 
can  hardly  be  considered  as  commencing.  That  there  were 
mistakes  and  errors  in  it  then  must  be  allowed  ;  but  the  greater 
part  of  them  had  arisen  from  the  carelessness  of  transcribers. 
Ignorance,  negligence,  haste,  and  other  like  sources  of  corrup- 
tion gave  rise  to  most  of  them.  They  owed  their  origin  to 
mere  carelessness.  But  about  the  time  mentioned  other  causes 
began  to  produce  mistakes  in  considerable  numbers.  Not  that 
they  had  been  wholly  inoperative  till  then,  but  that  their 
fruits  were  neither  many  nor  prominent  before.  And  what,  it 
may  be  asked,  were  these  sources  of  corruption  ?  Did  writers 
who  had  MSS.  in  their  hands,  and  copyists,  deteriorate  the  text 
hnoioingly  ?  They  did  so  with  more  or  less  knowledge  of  what 
they  were  doing,  yet  not  with  the  intention  of  spoiling  and 
corrupting  the  text.  They  had  not  generally  an  evil  purpose. 
Capriciousness  and  fancy  led  them  to  take  liberties.  Their 
design  was  commonly  good,  though  they  handled  their  copies 


46  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

with  freedom.  They  had  little  idea  of  blame  attaching  to 
them  in  consequence.  Most  supposed  that  they  made  the  text 
no  worse  ;  that  they  did  not  treat  it  improperly ;  that  they 
rather  made  it  better. 

These  observations  are  justified  by  the  complaints  which 
several  writers  make  with  regard  to  corruptions  in  the  text. 
And  such  complaints  reach  up  to  an  early  period,  for  they 
occur  in  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  Irenaeus,  and  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria. It  would  appear  that  even  in  their  time  false  readings 
had  got  into  the  text  of  current  MSS.  Nor  can  the  testimony 
of  these  and  other  fathers  be  reasonably  questioned,  especially 
as  it  is  confirmed  by  quotations  from  scripture  in  their  own 
and  other  ancient  writings.  Dionysius  writes, — "  As  the 
brethren  desired  me  to  write  epistles,  I  wrote  them,  and  these 
the  apostles  of  the  devil  have  filled  with  tares,  exchanging 
some  things  and  adding  others,  for  whom  there  is  a  woe  re- 
served. It  is  not  therefore  matter  of  wonder  if  they  have  also 
attempted  to  adulterate  the  sacred  writings."*  Clement  of 
Alexandria  speaks  of  persons  who  turned  the  gospels  into 
metaphrases  (ruv  iMsrariQsvrm  TO,  ihayy'iXia)  quoting  a  text 
(Matt.  V.  9,  10)  to  shew  in  what  manner  they  proceeded,  "f 
Irenaeus  speaks  of  persons  who  afiected  to  be  more  knowing 
than  the  apostles  [peritiores  apostolis)^  quoting  a  passage 
and  showing  how  they  read  and  explained  it.  |      Tertullian 

*  ^'E'TriaTOha.g  yasg  ....  'iyQci-ipcc'  x.cti  TXVTdg  oi  roy  dtot.(iohov  oi-TtogaKot 
^i^ctutuv  ysyifiucxv,  x  yAv  i^xiQovvrss,  ol  §£  Tr^oaridivng.  OJg  ro  oi/etl  x,ut»i. 
Oi/  dotfAtnarou  cL^a  si  xxi  tuv  x.v(iibi,ko)u  px^iov^y^actt  rivsg  ST^tfisfi'Ayivrai  yQxCpZv. 
Ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  23. 

"I"  Mctx.oc.Qioi,  (pmtv,  oi  ti()iuyf^ivot  'evsx.iv  "^iKcitoavvrig,  on  xiiroi  viol  dsov 
KT^YlSviaovTXi.  5j,  c!i;  rivsg  ruv  f.csrot.Ti6ivTUV  rx  svot,yyiKitx,,  Mcux.xQioi,  Cpmiv, 
oi  Oihiayi-ci'jot  v'tvo  rvjg  hmociOGVvyjg,  on  avrol  saoi/roci  rk7\iioi.  Stroinata, 
iv,  6. 

%  "  Nemo  cognoscit  Filium  nisi  pater,  neque  patrem  quis  cognoscit  nisi 
filiiis  ct  cui  voluerit  filius  revelare.  Sic  et  Matthaeus  posuit  et  Lucas 
similiter,  et  Marcus  idem  ipsum.  Joannes  enim  praeterit  locum  huuc. 
Hi  a'.itcm  qui  peritiores  apostolis  volunt  esse,  sic  clescribunt  :  Neitiu  cog- 


HISTORY    OF   THE   TEXT.  47 

too     speaks    of    adulterators     of    the    Scriptures    (adultera- 
tores).* 

From  the  operation  then  of  various  causes,  not  merely  from 
the  carelessness  of  transcribers  and  negligence  of  Christians 
generally,  or  the  unavoidable  mistakes  that  happen  to  all 
documents  which  are  multiplied  in  copies  and  transmitted 
from  one  generation  to  another,  but  from  caprice,  adventur- 
ousness,  design,  many  eiTors  had  got  into  the  New  Testament 
text  in  the  middle  of  the  second  centmy  and  afterwards.  The 
text  had  been  corrupted  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  both 
from  accidental  and  intentional  alterations. 

We  have  spoken  before  of  a.d.  127  as  the  proper  com- 
mencement of  the  latter  class  of  alterations,  or  at  least  as  the 
best  commencing  point  for  them  which  can  be  obtained  in  his- 
tory, although  they  could  not  have  been  wholly  new  even 
then.  And  why  has  this  time  been  selected  ?  Because  Mar- 
cion  then  went  to  Rome  with  his  apostoUcon  or  collection  of 
Paul's  epistles  ;  and  we  learn  something  both  of  him  and  his 
peculiar  treatment  of  the  text  from  various  writers.  In  the 
explanations,  insertions,  alterations  he  had  in  his  collection  of 
the  sacred  books,  are  presented  the  beginnings  of  textual 
changes  which  may  be  distinctly  traced  in  subsequent  writers, 
and  are  even  capable  of  classification  to  a  certain  extent.  His 
collection  of  the  sacred  books  was  the  largest,  if  not  the  earliest 
that  had  been  made  ;  and  the  very  fact  of  bringing  so  many 
together  into  one  volume  drew  more  attention  to  them,  and 
gave  rise  to  peculiar  changes  in  the  text. 

But  it  will  immediately  be  asked  in  relation  to  Marcion, 

novit  patrem  nisi  Jilius,  nee  filium  nisi  j)ater  et  cui  voluerit  fiUus  rerelare : 
et  interpretantur,  quasi  a  nullo  cognitus  sit  verus  Deus  ante  Domini 
nostri  adventum,  et  eum  Deum,  qui  a  prophetis  sit  annuntiatus,  dicunt 
non  esse  patrem  Christi." — Ads'ers.  Haeres.  iv.  6.  1. 

*  "  Quid  est  ergo  :  ncn  ex  sanguine  neque  ex  voluntate  viri,  sed  ex 
Deo  nati  sunt  ]  Hoc  quidem  capitulo  ego  potius  utar,  quum  adultcr- 
atores  ejus  obduxero,"  he. — De  Came  Christi,  cap.  19. 


48  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

does  he  not  stand  out  from  the  Catholic  Christians  as  a  heretic^ 
and  should  not  his  treatment  of  the  text  be  regarded  as  pecu- 
liar on  that  account?  If  he  proceeded  to  treat  the  letter  of 
scripture  unceremoniously,  Avould  orthodox  believers  do  the 
same  ?  Would  they  not  rather  handle  it  in  an  opposite  way  ? 
And  does  not  this  follow  from  their  statements  respecting  his 
falsification  of  the  text  ?  His  treatment  of  it  can  have  nothing 
in  common  with  theirs.  On  the  contrary,  their  accusations  of 
him  shew  that  they  acted  very  differently. 

In  answer  to  these  questions  and  conclusions  we  must  look 
at  Marcion  a  little  more  nearly.  It  is  quite  true  that  he  is  the 
heretic  most  blamed  by  the  fathers  for  falsifying  the  text. 
They  accuse  him  of  corrupting  and  mutilating  Luke's  gospel. 
And  there  is  good  ground  for  that  charge.  It  is  clear  from 
Tertullian's  testimony  that  he  partly  falsified  the  gospel  of 
Luke,  and  supplied  it,  in  part,  with  extracts  from  other  gospels. 
In  like  manner,  it  is  asserted  by  Tertullian,  Irenaeus,  and 
Epiphanius,  that  he  falsified  the  epistles.  But  this  latter 
charge  must  be  received  with  caution.  It  may  be  true  in 
some  cases,  but  it  is  not  certainly  well  founded  in  all.  We 
believe  that  it  holds  to  a  certain  extent.  The  testimonies  of 
the  very  fathers  who  bring  the  accusation  do  not  fully  sub- 
stantiate it.  Some  of  his  readings  which  depart  from  the 
common  text  are  grounded  on  the  authority  of  MSS.  Others 
are  not  only  derived  from  MSS.,  but  from  correct  ones.  Others 
are  mistakes  which  may  be  innocently  committed.  A  few  are 
wilful  corrujytions  made  to  favour  his  own  system.  That  the 
accusations  of  the  fathers  are  exaggerated  is  plain 'from  the 
fact  that  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius  contradict  one  another  in 
their  statements  respecting  him.  Thus  the  former  cites  trifling 
corruptions  from  the  Thessalonian  epistles ;  while  the  latter 
declares  that  those  epistles  were  tJioroughly  perverted.  In  like 
manner  Tertullian  speaks  of  small  alterations  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Philippians,  and  says  that  the  letter  to  Philemon   was 


IIISTOKY   OF   THE   TEXT.  49 

unscathed ;  while  Epiphanius  pronounces  both  epistles  icholly 
corrupted  by  Marcion.  Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  passages 
which  he  is  accused  of  corrupting. 

According  to  Tertullian*  he  is  said  to  have  interpolated 
die,  ovB;  in  Gal.  ii.  5.  But  this  reading  is  the  prevailing  one 
amons:  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers.  Doubtless  he  found  it 
in  MSS.     And  it  is  the  right  form  of  the  text. 

Again,  we  find  from  Jerome  f  that  he  omitted  a  number  of 
verses  in  Gal.  iii.  6-9,  from  xa^wg  ' AjS^aa/jj  till  suv  rCj  marui 
'A/3saa/x.  The  words  of  Tertullian ;}:  also  favour  the  idea  that 
Marcion  erased  something  in  this  place.  But  this  passage 
might  have  been  left  out  unintentionally,  especially  as  'A/Ssaa/x 
stands  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  it.  There  may  have  been 
here  an  omission  by  o/mowtsXi-jtov.  Perhaps  this  is  more  probable, 
since  the  sentiments  expressed  in  the  present  passage  are  also 
contained  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  epistle,  as  well  as  in 
the  foui-th  of  the  epistle  to  the  Komans,  where  Marcion  made 
no  alteration. 

In  1  Thes.  ii.  15  Marcion  reads  rovg  idlovg  ■rgofi?jras  where 
Tertullian  had  in  his  copy  rovg  -r^o^jjrag.  But  Marcion's  read- 
ing was  doubtless  in  MSS.,  for  many  still  have  it. 

In  Eplies.  iii.  9  octo  r&iv  aluvojv  h  Tui  Qiuij  the  preposition  Jv 
was  wanting  in  his  copy  probably  through  oversight. 

Epiphanius  charged  him  with  having  doXoT  in  Gal.  v.  9, 
whereas  he  reads  ^v/m?:  Here  however  weighty  authorities 
support  the  heretic. 

In  1  Corinth,  ix.  8  Marcion  reads  s'l  xai  6  v6/jLog  Muvg'sMg 
Tuvra.  oh  7.iyiij  whereas  Epiphanius  reads  n  '''■^i  ^  I'&V^os  raDra  o\j 
Xsyei.  Here  there  appears  to  have  been  no  falsification.  Pro- 
bably yj  and  si  were  interchanged  by  itacism. 

In  1  Corinth  x.  19,  20,  Marcion  reads  r/  ow  fruu,  or/  h^6- 
d-jTO'j  ri  igiv,  '/]   iidcuXoduTov  ti  Igiv  ;   aXX'  x.  r.  X.  /  but   Epiphanius 

*  Advers.  Marcion,  lib.  v.  3.  t  Comment,  in  epist.  ad.  Galat. 

;j:  Advers.  Marcion,  v  3. 
VOL.  II.  E 


50  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

has  Ti  ovv  ^>5/x,/,  67-/  sidojXodurov  ri  sgiv  /  dX'A  on  a  &{jo\tsi^  &C.  Here 
liDdQurov  was  a  gloss  upon  s/duXodvTov,  wliicli  was  ignorantly  taken 
into  the  text,  so  that  Marcion's  copy  had  both. 

In  1  Corinth,  xiv.  19,  Marcion  reads  dia  rhv  vo/mv,  but  Epi- 
phanius  tu>  vdi  /xou.  Here  there  was  an  evident  blunder.  Per- 
haps it  arose  from  hia  roZ  vo6g  [jajv  being  appended  as  an  explana- 
tion to  TU)  vof  /zov. 

Again  in  Eph.  v.  31,  either  the  words  aui  xoXXjj^^tftra/  r^ 
yvvatxl,  or  simply  rfj  ywaixl  were  wanting  in  Marcion's  copy. 
Many  authorities  omit  the  former,  and  if  the  latter  only  was 
left  out,  it  must  have  been  purely  accidental,  for  no  sense  is 
given  by  it. 

In  1  Corinth,  xv.  45,  Marcion  is  also  accused  by  Tertullian* 
of  falsifying  the  passage  by  reading  6  'ioyjirac,  x.u^iog  instead  of 
'ieyjxrog ' AhdiM.  So  too  with  XV.  47,  where  instead  of  av6^umg 
iS,  ovgavov  he  is  said  to  have  first  written  6  -/.{j^iog  s^  ov^avou. 

In  2  Thes.  i.  8  he  left  out  iv  tu^!  (pXoyog  j)urposeli/  according 
to  Tertullian.f 

In  Eph.  li.  15  he  read  rh  /j^sgoroiyov  rov  (p^ayi^oZ  Xvoag,  rrij 
iyj^av  sv  rfj  (Sa^yii  without  aurouj  and  connected  s'^^^a  sv  ea^xi  so 
as  to  be  equivalent  to  Ga^-/.i%rj-  This  was  a  wilful  corruption.  \ 
In  like  manner  in  ii.  20,  %ai  'r^o(pyirSjv  was  omitted  through  a 
bad  motive.  § 

There  was  an  omission  in  Colos.  i.  16,  with  which  Ter- 
tullian  charges  him  that  must  have  been  intentional,  viz.  Sti 
sv   alrui  iKT/dSri  rd  irdvra ra  Tavra  ^/'  avrou  xai   slg  ahrov 

r/.Tisrai.  Tliis  evidently  appears  a  falsification  of  the  passage, 
as  well  as  the  omission  of  T^uTOTOKog  vderig  Krigmg  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  ||  The  same  father  Tertullian  also  complains  of 
important  corruptions  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  on  Mar- 
cion's part,  but  does  not  specify  any.  It  appears  that  he 
omitted  from  x.  5  to  xi.  32,  so  that  xi.  33  follows  x.  4.^ 

*  Adv.  Marc.  v.  10.  t  Ibid,  v.  16.  %  Ibid,  c.  17.         §  Ibid. 

II  Ibid,  c.  19.  f  Ibid,  c.  14. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  51 

In  2  Corinth,  iv.  13,  xara  to  yiy^afJiif/^svor  sT/ffrsixTa,  dil  IXd- 
Xr,ga  was  wanting  in  Marcion's  copy,  according  to  Epiphanius. 
It  is  not  clear  whether  this  was  an  intentional  omission  or  not. 
Probably  it  was  designed. 

Such  is  a  specimen  of  Marcion's  readings  gathered  from 
his  two  chief  accusers  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius.  We  do  not 
deny  that  the  charges  against  him  were  true  in  part,  even  in 
respect  to  the  epistles  of  Paul.  Origen*  blames  him  for 
jumbling  together  the  last  two  chapters  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans ;  and  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  the  statement. 
We  have  also  seen  that  Tertullian  speaks  of  extensive  mutila- 
tions in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  for  which  statement  there 
was  reason.  And  in  the  case  of  various  passages,  the  omission 
of  important  words  or  sentences  must  have  proceeded  from  a 
bad  motive.  But  he  was  not  to  blame  for  all  his  readings. 
Many  instances  laid  to  his  account  are  innocent  mistakes. 
In  them  his  readings  are  very  much  like  those  current  in 
orthodox  copies.  Mis  corruptions  were  often  similar  to  theirs. 
His  readings  in  part  should  be  treated  as  of  the  same  kind 
with  those  found  in  Irenaeus  and  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
We  intend  therefore  to  quote  some  of  them  as  belonging  to 
the  same  class  and  originating  in  similar  causes ;  to  which 
the  strong  woxd  falsification  should  not  be  applied.  We  shall 
not  do  Irenaeus  or  Clement  any  injustice  by  placing  their 
readings  in  the  same  category  with  those  of  Marcion ;  neither 
shall  we  do  a  favour  to  Marcion  which  he  deserves  not. 
Heretic  though  he  was,  he  should  be  treated  justly.  Doubt- 
less he  had  very  little  regard  for  the  text  of  Scripture  in  many 
places  ;  but  the  fathers  who  have  accused  him  have  been  more 
zealous  than  discreet  in  all  their  charges. 

Other  heretics  are  accused  of  falsifying  the  text.  Thus 
Tatian  is  said  to  have  made  alterations  in  the  Pauline  epistles. 
The  Valentinians  are  also  charged  by  Irenaeus  with  an  altera- 
*  Comment,  in  epist.  ad  Rom.  ad.  cap.  xvi.  25. 


52  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

tion  in  Matt.  xi.  27.  When  Tertullian  accuses  them  of  chang- 
ing the  singular  into  the  plural  John  i.  13,  the  plural  is  the 
right  reading.* 

It  will  appear  from  these  observations  that  allowance 
should  be  made  for  the  warmth  and  enthusiastic  zeal  of  the 
fathers  in  bringing  forward  accusations  of  this  nature.  They 
were  by  no  means  cool,  calm,  and  critical  in  their  procedure ; 
and  therefore  their  assertions  must  be  adopted  with  caution. 
They  cannot  be  safely  relied  on,  without  an  examination  of 
the  probable  foundation  on  which  they  proceed.  In  what- 
ever way  the  falsifications  of  the  New  Testament  text  on  the 
part  of  the  earliest  heretics  be  viewed,  the  departures  from  the 
true  reading  that  flowed  from  the  source  in  question  into  MSS. 
generally,  must  have  been  inconsiderable.  Some  wilful  corrup- 
tions made  by  Marcion  did  certainly  get  into  various  copies, 
but  they  never  obtained  an  extensive  footing.  The  orthodox 
church  was  awake  to  the  importance  of  preserving  their  holy 
writings  from  the  contamination  of  heretical  hands,  and  pre- 
vented any  material  falsification.  The  heretics  were  compara- 
tively few,  and  did  not  possess  sufiicient  influence,  even  had 
they  been  so  disposed,  to  corrupt  the  records  extensively. 
The  catholic  christians,  scattered  as  they  were  through  many 
lands,  opposed  a  barrier  to  radical  alterations.  The  corrup- 
tions that  took  place  within  the  catholic  church  were  far  more 
serious  in  their  influence  than  those  made  out  of  it  5  because 
they  were  liable  to  be  propagated  and  perpetuated.  As  long 
as  one  had  not  been  hereticated  for  his  doctrinal  views,  he 
might  add,  take  away,  and  confound  readings  without  expo- 
sure to  suspicion.  This  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  Ptolemy, 
nearly  contemporary  with  Marcion,  quoted  passages  from 
Matthew,  John,  and  Paul,  with  some  peculiarities  resembling 
those  originating  with  Marcion  himself,  and  yet,  so  far  as  is 
known,  without  being  accused  on  that  account  of  falsification. 
*"  De  Carne  Christij  c.  19. 


HISTOKY   OF   THE   TEXT.  53 

Thus  he  omitted  rou  hoZ  in  1  Corinth,  ii.  14,  without  giving 
oiFence.  He  added  to  Matt.  v.  39  oXug ;  to  hu^ov,  rw  kui  in 
Matt.  XV.  5  ;  o  'xarfio  after  u  iir\  sig  6  ds6g,  in  Matt.  xix.  17 ;  oOx 
oJda  to  xai  rl  s/'crw  in  John  xii.  27.  He  also  altered  tyiv  'jra^dbom 
•jiMojv  into  r.  C7.  rSii/  ■TosajSursPMv  in  Matt.  xv.  6.* 

Thus  we  may  treat  in  many  instances  the  readings  found 
in  the  works  of  the  early  heretics  and  in  those  of  the  orthodox 
as  similar.  Taking  them  together  as  far  as  they  can  be  justly 
associated,  the  question  recurs,  what  indications  do  they  afford 
of  the  state  of  the  text  about  the  middle  and  towards  the  close 
of  the  second  century  ?  What  kind  of  corruption  had  it  under- 
gone. We  must  believe  the  writers  who  speak  of  falsifications 
in  the  records,  though  in  some  cases  attaching  a  meaning  to 
the  word  different  from  that  intended  by  such  as  employed  it ; 
and  above  all,  we  must  conclude  from  the  works  themselves  of 
the  catholic  fathers  belonging  to  this  part  of  the  century,  that 
many  alterations  had  been  made  in  the  text.  As  has  been  al- 
ready hinted,  the  varieties  of  it  are  even  capable  of  classifica- 
tion to  some  extent. 

Fn-st.  As  much  greater  attention  was  given  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament writings  when  ^jm^  together  in  a  greater  or  less  collec- 
tion, passages  must  have  been  observed  in  which  the  same  ideas, 
events,  or  sayings  were  differently  expressed.  In  the  second 
century,  such  diversities  of  expression  began  to  be  noted  either 
in  the  margin  of  copies  or  above  the  lines ;  the  consequence  of 
which  was,  that  transcribers  afterwards  changed  one  expression 
for  another,  formed  a  new  phrase  out  of  several  synonymous 
ones,  or  connected  together  various  expressions  descriptive  of 
the  same  thing.  Something  like  this  must  have  been  done  by 
the  persons  whom  Clement  censures  as  iMsrariQivng  ra  roay- 
ysXia.  The  gospels  were  peculiarly  liable  to  such  treatment, 
as  they  contain  so  much  that  is  alike.  But  other  parts  of  the 
*  Ptolemaei  ep.  ad  Floram,  in  Epiphanii,  opcr.  p.  210,  ed.  Petav. 


54  BIBLICAL   CKITICISM. 

New  Testament,  though  of  course  in  a  much  less  degree,  were 
not  exempted  from  it. 

Tlius  in  Matt.  x.  26,  where  was  written  at  first  oudh  yd^ 
sgi  xsxaXu/M/j^swii  o  ovx  d'XoxaXvfidyjfftTai  zal  K^vTrTov  o  oh  yvciie&rjSirai, 
some  one  had  written  beside  or  ahove  it,  ohbh  x^wTrTov  o  ou  (pavs^oj- 
67jgsTai  o!j8s  xiKaXvfi/x'svov,  o  ovx  d'7ToxaXu(p&7]6iTot.ij  which  latter  had 
displaced  the  other  in  copies  before  Clement's  time. 

In  Luke  iii.  22  are  the  words  au  sJ  6  u'/6g  fiov.  Beside  them 
had  been  written  the  next  words  of  the  Psalm,  Jyw  ernMi^ov 
yiysvvri%d  6i^  which  were  afterwards  taken  into  the  text  itself, 
so  that  Clement,  Justin,  and  other  early  authorities  found  here 
6  xj'idg  //,ou  £/,  (Tu,  syoj  Syj/xs^cv  ysysvurixd  Gi. 

In  Luke  xvi.  9  there  had  been  inserted  at  the  end  of  the 
verse  s/'  t-o  fj^iz^lv  cvx,  sryi^^aars,  to  fx'sya  rig  hfuv  boiGn.  This  waS 
taken  into  the  text,  and  then  for  the  sake  of  connecting  it 
with  the  next  verse,  was  added  Xsyw  yd^  Ijiuv  on  6  T/g&j,  &c. 

Marcion  had  (J^ird  T2z7g  71/Ji^s^a.g  syi^&rivai  instead  of  xai  rfi  r^iryi 

yi/Ms^a  iysg^^i/a/,  Luke  ix.  22.  This  was  doubtless  derived  from 
a  parallel  place,  and  is  in  other  authorities. 

In  John  vi.  51  we  have  ij  sd^^  [mov  tgh,  ^v  syu  bdieu  bvl^  rijg 
rov  Koff/ji^ou  (^w^g,  where  the  clause  ^v  lyoj  buiau  is  a  gloss  formed 
from  the  analogy  of  the  preceding  6  d^rog  ov  syu  hweu.  This 
gloss  is  older  than  Clement. 

In  Acts  XV.  20  roD  Tv/xroD  had  been  taken  from  the  parallel 
in  xxi.  25,  and  inserted  prior  to  Clement's  day. 

In  Mark  xv.  28  there  was  inserted  from  Matthew  and 
Luke  xa/  I'xXri^ui&ri  ?i  y^a(pri  7]  Xsyouffa.  :  -/.al  fiird  dvo/iLMV  IXoyiadrj. 
The  addition  is  found  in  Origen.* 

Secondly.  In  explaining  and  enforcing  various  doctrines 

drawn  from  the  New  Testament,  diversities  of  exposition  arose 

out  of  diversity  of  terms  employed ;  and  in  cases  of  dispute  it 

was  judged  best  to  take  words  in  the  sense  in  which  they  were 

*  Eichhorn's  Einleitung  in  das  neue  Testament,  vol.  iv.  pp.  223,  22-4. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  55 

used  in  the  apostles'  time.  This  gave  rise  to  an  exegetical 
tradition  which  was  marked  in  the  margin  of  the  text,  but  also 
occasionally  inserted  in  the  text  itself. 

Matt.  i.  18  has  roZ  hi  'Iricou  X^igou  i]  ysrjrjgig  ourojg  ^v.  Irenaeus 
nas  Tou  ds  x^/;ov  n  yivv7\6ig.  So  other  authorities.  The  omission 
of  'Insou  arose  from  taking  ymn<sig^  or  as  others  read  ysnaigj  to 
refer  to  his  eternal  generation,  not  his  nativity. 

In  Romans  iii.  26  the  original  reading  appears  to  have 
been,  ug  rh  shai  avrov  dlxaiov  xai  dixaiouvra  rov  1%  Tigsug.  Over 
aiiTov  some  one  first  wrote  'i^jcoDi/.     A  transcriber,  not  knowing 

well  where  it  should  be,  placed  it  at  the  end  of  the  text rhv 

sz  TigBcug,  'It^govv,  as  Clement  has  it.  And  because  the  accusa- 
tive Irigovv  does  not  give  a  good  sense,  it  was  altered  into 
'Ir,<rov  the  genitive,  as  it  is  in  very  ancient  MSS. 

In  Matt.  i.  25  avrrig  rhv  t^utotokov  was  left  out  in  some 
very  old  MSS,  lest  it  might  be  thought  that  Mary  had  children 
afterwards.* 

Thirdly.  Amid  uniformity  of  diction  it  was  perceived  that 
considerable  diversity  existed.  In  one  part  of  the  collection 
of  sacred  writings  the  mode  of  expression  was  obscure,  in  an- 
other more  perspicuous ;  in  one  more  complete,  in  another 
more  condensed  and  abridged ;  in  one  more  definite,  in  another 
more  vague ;  in  one  the  usual  form  of  expression,  in  another 
an  unusual  one.  Hence,  for  the  purpose  of  making  every 
thing  more  intelligible,  words  and  phrases  not  agreeable  to  the 
Greek  idiom  were  made  more  conformable  to  it ;  obscure  were 
rendered  more  easy  of  apprehension ;  unknown  and  unusual 
were  explained  by  well  known  phraseology,  and  metaphrases 
or  verbal  translations  placed  in  the  margin  or  between  the 
lines  of  the  text.  It  is  said  that  metaphrases  were  made  by 
Tatian  on  Paul's  epistles. 

Examples  are  such  as  these  : — 

*  Eichhom's  Einleit.  vol.  iv.  i)p.  225,  226. 


56  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Luke  il.  49,  oix  oJoaTi  is  the  reading  both  of  Irenaeus  and 
Tertullian  for  o^pc  fidurB. 

Luke  xii.  38,  sv  rfj  oiuregq,  (puXaxfj.  Marcion  has  rfj  ismpvfi 
(pvXaxfj.     The  same  is  found  in  D. 

Luke  xix.  26,  tuj  'i^ovn  do&rjgsrcci.  Clement  has  T^oarsS/idBrai ; 
J).  T^odTidBTai ;  several  cursive  MSS.,  the  Vulgate  and  Ethiopic, 

add  to  dodriffsrai,  xal  '^rs^iGffsvdyjffBrai. 

Rev.  i.  15,  Todig ojg  sv  xa/j^lvijj    'XiTrvgcufjj'svoi.       Irenaeus 

reads  'TnTu^oj/Msvu). 

1  Corinth,  xv.  49.  Instead  of  (po^ssoiMv  Irenaeus  and  most 
of  the  uncial  MSS.  have  f  ooltfw/x£i/  in  a  hortatory  sense. 

In  Luke  xi.  54  the  right  reading  is  snhoi-jovng  ahrhv,  S^sZeai 
Ti.  But  very  early  there  was  written  as  a  gloss  over  or  beside 
hih^ihovTsg  the  more  common  (^jjroDirsc,  which  was  afterwards 
taken  into  the  text  and  joined  to  hih^.  by  -Aai.  Hence  the 
words  snb^ixjoMTig  ahrov,  for  which  the  gloss  was  substituted,  are 
wanting  in  the  old  Latin  and  D. 

Luke  xix.  26,  nai  6'  'iy^u  a^dricfsrai  d--r  auTov.     Marcion  reads 

Luke  xii.  27,  ov  xo'ria,  ovBs  vyjdn.  Clement  has  oun  vrjki  o'Jrs 
v(paivst.      So  too  D. 

1  Peter  i.  8.  Irenaeus,  and  before  him  Poly  carp,  has  the 
passage  with  a  glossarial  word  inserted,  sig  ov  u^n  //.ri  o^Sjvrsg 
T/gsvsTS,  TigsuovTsg  ds  x.  r.  X. 

In  like  manner  something  was  omitted.  Thus  xXrt&fig  i!g 
ydfMug,  as  Clement  reads  Luke  xiv.  8  without  i/to  rmg ;  dvamffai 
ug  rov  sg^arov  to-ttov^  Luke  xiv.  10,  without  'Togsvdsig,  which  is 
also  changed  sig  rh  l(i-/a.rov  ro'TTov  dvaTtiim^  as  Clement  has  it 
with  D.  I  'xarfog  /j^ov  tou  h  oh^avoTg^  Matt,  xviii.  10,  where  sv  ov- 
^avoTg  is  omitted  by  Clement  and  others. 

Acts  iv.  31,  iKdXom [/jiTa  -ffa^priffiag.     Irenaeus  and 

others  have  it  in  a  more  definite  form,  /Mird  Ta^^riffiag  Tavri  rw 
dsXovTi  mgiUiv.  In  Luke  viii.  42,  Marcion  has  xai  syiviTo  h  toj 
■■jo^i'ltidOui.      The  usual  text  is  iv  hi  rw  {j-rrdyuv. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  57 

Fourthly.  Some  circumstances  as  related  gave  offence  or 
excited  suspicion.  Hence  something  was  supplied  which  ap- 
peared necessary  to  justify  their  credibility,  or  desirable  to  sup- 
plement the  narrative.  It  was  this  that  gave  rise  to  the  words 
of  Acts  viii.  37,  "  if  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart  thou 
mayest."  A  confession  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch  appeared  to  be  wanting,  and  it  was  inserted  accord- 
ingly.    Irenaeus  has  the  addition  to  the  text. 

Fifthly.  Synonymes  are  exchanged,  as  in 

Matt.  x.  42,  fir\  a-TToXiSY]  rhv  >mig&ov  avrou.  Cyprian  and  many 
other  authorities  have  /jt,rj  d-roXriTat  6  /jyis^og. 

Matt.  XV.  6,  yjxv^uiffari  t^v  ivroXrjv.  Ptolemy  in  his  epistle 
to  Flora  has  rh  vo'mov. 

Matt,  xxiii.  27,  ohtng  l^oikv  //-b  (paivovTai  oi^aToi.  Clement 
and  Irenaeus  read  'i^M&iv  6  rd<pog  <pa!vsrai  oj^aTog,  'ssoihv  hi  yiiJ.il. 

Luke  xiii.  27,  o/  l^ydrai  rrig  dbixiag.      Origen  has  dvofiiag. 

Luke  xix.  5,  sti/ms^ov  yd^.  Irenaeus  and  others  read  on 
(!ri//,i^ov. 

Luke  vi.  29,  Td^s^s  y.ai  rrjv  aXXriV.  Ptolemy  reads  oTge'4/oi' 
ai/rw  xai  rriv  dXXyjv. 

Luke  xii.  48,  'm^iffsori^oii  aJr/jsovffiv  avTov.  Clement  has  vXiTov 
d'rair7i(rou(^iv.* 

The  preceding  observations  will  serve  to  shew,  that  the 
deviations  from  the  current  text  as  it  now  is,  were  many  during 
the  first  two  centuries.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  too,  that  the 
means  existing  for  the  investigation  of  the  subject  are  very 
scanty.  If  so  much  can  be  gathered  from  occasional  quotations 
of  the  New  Testament  in  the  remaining  works  of  very  few 
fathers  besides  two,  Irenaeus  and  Clement,  a  conclusion  may 
be  fairly  drawn  as  to  the  manifold  diversities  presented  by  the 
text.  But  other  sources  of  investigation  soon  appear,  from 
which  the  prospect  is  not  more  favourable.  The  disorder  does 
not  lessen  as  our  means  of  ascertaining  it  increase.  Towards 
*  Eichhoru's  Einlcitung,  vol.  iv.  pp.  228,  229. 


58  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

the  end  of  the  second  century  two  ancient  translations  were 
made,  viz.  the  old  Latin  and  the  old  Syriac,  at  the  basis  of 
which  lay  a  Greek  text  somewhat  older.  Both  represent  the 
state  of  the  text  in  the  second  century.  And  from  them  it  is 
apparent  how  different  were  the  copies  whence  they  were  taken 
from  our  present  ones,  in  the  two  countries  where  they  origi- 
nated. It  is  true  that  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  to  the 
state  of  the  Greek  text  is  necessarily  imperfect  because  of  their 
being  in  other  languages.  It  is  also  deteriorated  in  conse- 
quence of  the  changes  made  in  them  since  they  appeared. 
Their  own  texts  have  suffered.  Besides,  they  deviate  from 
one  another  in  a  way  embarrassing  to  the  critic.  But  though 
it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  discover,  especially  in  regard  to  the 
old  Latin,  what  was  its  original  text,  yet  we  may  in  most  cases 
gather  from  passages  in  the  Latin  fathers  of  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries  cited  from  it,  its  near  approximation  to  the 
original.  It  was  literal  at  first,  and  is  still  literal ;  so  that  the 
critic  may  see  with  much  probability  what  the  Greek  was 
which  the  translator  had  before  him,  i.  e.  the  text  as  it  was  in 
the  second  century.  If  the  two  most  ancient  Latin  fathers 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian  be  taken  and  their  quotations  examined, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  Greek  text  discovered  through  the 
versio  vetus  they  quote  was  extensively  altered.  It  had  suffered 
much  from  causes  already  mentioned.  Let  us  look  at  it  through 
the  version  in  question. 

In  John  iii.  6  the  received  reading  is  rh  ysysvvrj/Mswjv  Ix.  rng 
eagxog  ca^f  Hiv,  xai  to  yiyivvrjfMivov  ex  rov  cn'su/z-arog,  'TTvsu/Ma  sgiv. 
This  is  quoted  by  Tertullian,*  quod  in  came  naium  est  caro  est^ 
quia  ex  came  natmn  est ;  et  quod  de  spiritu  natum  est,  spiritus 
est,  quia  Deus  sjairitus  est  et  de  Deo  natus  est.  Here  the  first 
additional  clause  6V/  Ix  rr^g  ea^xhg  sysvvrjdri  is  in  many  authori- 
ties, which  may  be  seen  in  Scbolz.  The  second  addition  on 
ix  Toy  Ti/su/iaroc  krtv  is  also  not  confined  to  Tertullian.  The 
*  De  Carne  Chiisti,  cap.  xviii. 


HISTORY  OF   THE   TEXT.  59 

third,  quia  Deus  spiritus  est,  et  de  (or  ex)  Deo  natiis  est,  is  well 
supported.     All  are  explanatory  insertions. 

In  Mark  xiii.  2  Cyprian*  has,  "etpost  triduum  aliud  exci- 
tahitur  sine  manibusy  This  clause  was  borrowed  from  xiv.  58 
and  put  into  the  present  place.  It  is  also  in  D.,  where  the 
Greek  is  xa;  hia  r^iojv  ri/j,i^oJv  ciXkog  dvagryjgirai  aviu  ^noZiv. 

In  Luke  xviii.  14  the  common  text  stands  thus,  hhtxaiu- 
fjbivog  i/g  rov  oh.ov  ahraZ  n  hiTvog.  Cyprian  f  has  descendit  hie 
justificatus  in  domum  suam  magis  quann  ille  Pharisaeus.  This 
agrees  with  D.  and  other  authorities,  fiaXXov  'jrd^  ixsmv  rov 
(S?a^ieaTov.     The  addition  was  made  exegeiically. 

Acts  iv.  8,  ?r^g(r/3i/r£go/  rou  'iffga^X.  Cyprian  has|  Seniores 
Israelis,  audite.  In  like  manner  dnoixsari  is  in  other  authori- 
ties. 

Acts  iv.  32.  After  ^  na^hla  -/.at  71  -^vyji  (ua  Cyprian 
reads§  necjuit  inter  illos  discrimen  ullum.  This  is  also  in  D., 
xai  oh%  n^  didxPiaig  h  ahroTg  ohhi/Mia.  A  gloSS  was  taken  into 
the  text. 

1  John  ii.  17.  After  ij.ini  slg  rh  alum  Cyprian  lias|| 
quomodo  Deus  manet  in  aeternum.  Others  have  the  same 
addition. 

The  diversities  in  single  words  are  very  numerous. 

In  1  Corinth,  xv.  51,  the  received  text  has  Ta^T-jg  ///b  oJ 

xoy/x^j^^jfToV^s^a-  iravng  hi  d'KkayriGoiMi&a.  This  is  quoted  \>J  Ter- 
tullian,^  omnes  quidem  resurgemus,  non  autem  onines  demuta- 
himur. 

In  Acts  ii.  38  the  common  reading,  It/  rw  ovoi/jan  'IriCou 
X^igou  is  enlarged  by  the  prefix  of  rou  xu^i'ov  in  Cyprian**  and 
other  Latin  fathers,  that  Christ's  full  dignity  might  be  put  into 

the  passage. 

*  Advers.  Judaeos,  lib.  1,  cap.  xv.  t  De  Oratione  doininica. 

J  Advers.  Judaeos,  lib.  2,  cap.  xvi. 

§  De  Opere  et  Eleemosynis,  sub.  finem. 

!l  Testimon.  ad  Quirinum,  lib.  iii.  11.  If  De  Anima,  cap.  xlii. 

**  Epist.  ad  Jubaiauum. 


60  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

In  Acts  iii.  19  -^luv  is  inserted  in  different  places  ac- 
cording to  different  authorities,  either  after  sX^wtr/  or  am-^-o^iuc. 
It  was  taken  from  the  margin. 

2  Corinth,  xi.  14,  w;  for  slg  in  Cyprian*  and  the  old  Latin. 

The  Peshito  or  old  Syriac  exhibits  the  same  kind  of  arbi- 
trary alterations.  It  is  true  that  we  have  no  Syrian  fathers 
nearly  contemporary  with  the  origin  of  this  version,  from 
whose  quotations  it  might  be  shewn  that  the  translator  had  a 
Greek  text  before  him  with  changes  similar  to  those  of  the  old 
Latin.  But  we  learn  from  the  works  of  Ephrem  the  Syrian, 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  that  the  Peshito 
then  had  many  peculiarities  in  its  text  similar  to  or  iden- 
tical with  those  of  the  old  Latin  and  the  Cambridge  MS.  or  D. 

Thus  in  Matt.  vi.  15  the  common  text  has  afyigsi  ra  Ta^aT- 
ru/xara  v/j,oJv.      But  in  the  Peshito,  Ephrem,  D.  &c.,   a^^cs/ 

v/mTI/  ra  'xaoa-iTTiS)iJMra  'oiLm. 

Matt.  X.  10,  {Jj7\  itri^av.  The  Syriac  and  Ephrem  have,  iJ.Yihy\ 
ff^gav,  neque  perum. 

Matt.  xil.  14,  0/  hi  cpa^KfaTbi  (jv,'J^J3o-jaiov  'iXajSov  xar  aCrou  s^eX- 
66vrsg.  The  Syriac  and  Ephrem  read,  -/.al  i^iXQovni  o'l  tpa^ieaToi 
(ru^(3ovXiov  sXajSov  %olt   avrov. 

Matt.  xiii.  28,  o/  dl  douXoi  sTrov  aCruJ.  The  Syriac  and 
Ephrem,  Xsyouffiv  avrCJ  01  oouXoi.  So  the  old  Latin,  dicunt  ei 
servi. 

Luke  xi.  34.  For  (iXov  the  Syriac  and  Ephrem  read  crai/.  So 
also  D. 

Luke  xiv,  5.  The  received  text  has  Ivog  ri  (3ovg  slg  (posa^ 
sf/^TSssTrai  x.ai  ovx  s-jdsug  dvaa-Trdaii  avrhv  sv  rfj  riiMs^a  rov  ea^^drou. 
The  Syriac  and  Ephrem  read,  rfi  ri/j,i^a  rov  (fal3j3drou  xal  oxj-a, 
ihd'sMg  d)i(x,(S'!rd(Ssi  ahrov. 

John  X.  16,  xa/  aXXa  veo^ara  l-/oi.  The  Syriac  and  Ephrem 
read,  %a]  dXXd  ds.  The  Cambridge  MS.  also  has  et  alias  aufem 
oves. 

*  De  Unitatc  ecclesiac. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  61 

Johll  XI.  39,  Xsysi  avroj  ij  dosXipri  rov  TiTiXiuTri'MTog.  Here 
the  Syriac  and  Eplirem  have  Martha  inserted  before  r,  ddsXcpri. 
In  like  manner  the  Cambridge  MS.,  dicit  ei  Martha  (soror  de- 
functi  erat).     The  Colbert  MS.  has  also  Ma^^tha. 

How  then  are  Ave  to  deal  with  this  problem  of  manifold 
and  extensive  alterations  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
the  second  centmy.  Many  of  them  exhibit  the  marks  of 
industry  and  design,  else  they  would  not  have  been  so  nume- 
rous, and  so  much  scattered  throughout  all  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  appears  remarkable  that  such  liberties 
should  be  taken  with  books  so  highly  esteemed  and  so  authori- 
tative. And  yet  the  Christians  were  not  deterred  from  officious 
meddling  with  them.  Such  insertions,  omissions,  and  substi- 
tutions of  one  word  for  another,  were  owing  to  the  practices  of 
those  who  read  the  lessons  from  Scriptm'e  in  the  churches,  to 
the  presbyters,  to  grammarians  and  transcribers.  And  as 
there  was  much  intercourse  betv/een  the  churches,  the  mother- 
church  having  a  watchful  care  over  those  subject  to  it,  the 
copies  prepared  and  used  in  the  one,  were  transmitted  to  the 
smaller  and  inferior  ones. 

In  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  we  have  an  express 
and  definite  testimony  relative  to  the  degenerate  state  of  the 
text  and  the  causes  of  it.  Origen,  the  first  critical  reader  of 
the  Scriptui'cs  who  had  appeared  in  those  times,  speaks  of  the 
condition  of  the  gospels  ;  and  he  was  most  competent  to  give  a 
just  opinion  on  the  subject.  Though  he  refers  to  the  gospels 
particularly,  yet  we  are  warranted  in  applying  what  he  says 
to  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament  likewise,  with  the 
deduction  that  parallels  were  more  frequently  inserted  in  the 
gospels  than  elsewhere.  The  passage  in  which  this  father 
alludes  to  the  corruption  of  the  text  occurs  in  his  commentaries 
on  Matthew's  gospel :  "  But  now  without  doubt  there  is  a 
great  diversity  of  copies,  whether  it  has  arisen  from  the  indo- 
lence of  certain  scribes,  or  from  the  boldness  of  some  who  make 


62  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

irksome  emendations,  or  from  the  procedure  of  such  as  add  or 
take  away  what  pleases  them  in  the  correction  of  MSS."* 
According  to  these  words,  the  corruption  of  the  text  is  referred 
to  three  sources,  the  carelessness  of  transcribers,  the  caprice  of 
those  who  undertook  the  revision  or  correction  of  copies,  and 
the  meddling  of  critics  who  ventured  upon  improvements  ac- 
cording to  their  own  judgment  and  so  added  or  omitted. 

In  examining  Origen's  Greek  works — for  those  which  exist 
only  in  a  Latin  translation  are  too  uncertain  to  be  relied  on — 
we  find  the  same  varieties  of  reading  that  occur  in  the  oldest 
fathers  as  well  as  the  old  Latin  and  Peshito  versions.  Indeed 
he  often  agrees  with  them  in  their  peculiar  reading  of  a  passage. 
If  he  does  not,  the  forms  of  the  text  they  present  can  be 
paralleled  in  other  places  of  the  Alexandrine  fathers.  It  is 
also  natural  to  expect  that  the  readings  of  Clement  and  Origen 
should  generally  coincide,  the  one  having  been  the  pupil  of 
the  other,  and  living  at  the  same  place. 

Additions  from  apocryphal  writings  and  from  parallel  pas- 
sages occur  in  Origen.     Thus  he  has,  along  with  Clement  and 

EusebiuS,    in    Matt.   vi.   33,    airshs  ra,  n,iy6Xa  xot,i  TOL  lux^a   u/x/i' 

TgOffTidTjffirai,   K.   T.   X. 

In  Matt.  vii.  22,  xv^is,  xi^/s,  ov-/.  h  T'Sj  ovo/xarl  ffou  sipayo^a?!',  xai 
h  rw  hbijjar'i  eov  s'jriofxsv.     Origen  has  these  words  four  times. 

In  Matt.  X.  26,  ovdlv  -/.^uTrov,  o  oh  (pavsgcdS^gsrai,  ov8s  xsxaXu/A- 
fjyivov,  0  o\j%  ccTroxakv^driGiTai,  x.  r.  X.  instead  of  o-ohh  yd^  sgi  xixaXxjii- 
jxsvov,  X.  T.  X.  Here  Origen  and  Clement  agree,  except  that  the 
former  has  %ai  oudh  for  ovbs. 

In  Luke  ix.  27,  for  'ioug  av  78uffi  rriv  BagiXsiav  Tou  ^sou,  Origen 
has  along  with  D.  rhv  vlov  rov  dvd^u'rou  Is^of/Livov  h  rfi  do^rj  auTOv 
from  parallel  places. 

pa^lvf^tag  tiuuu  yQoi.<piuu,  li'n  cItio  Tohi^rig  Tivotv  f^oxdYi(>6ig  ry}g  tto(>6o)(Tiui  rojv 
y^oe.(pof^i'jo>u,    il'rs  xotl   sctto  tuv  roi  eot-vralg  ^oicovvrx  sv  t?  ^to^Suait   vqoot 
SiuTuv  v)  d(poi.{(}ovvT6)v.     Comment,  in  Matt.  xv. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT.  63 

Even  the  single  readings  which  are  found  in  the  old  Latin 
and  Syriac  versions  are  repeated  by  Origen,  doubtless  out  of  the 
MSS.  he  used.  It  is  evident  therefore  that  they  were  at  that 
time  scattered  through  many  MSS.  Thus,  in  the  gospels, 
Matt.  xi.  19,  the  received  text  has  rszvujv.  But  Origen,  as 
well  as  the  Vetus,  the  old  Syriac,  and  other  sources  read  s^yuv. 
In  Matt.  iii.  6,  'xora//.ui  is  added  to  'lu^davri  in  Origen  (twice), 
the  Peshito,  and  other  ancient  authorities  taken  from  Mark 
i.  5. 

In  Matt.  V.  27  roTg  a^yaioig  is  Omitted  in  the  Peshito, 
several  MSS.  of  the  Vetus,  and  Origen. 

In  Matt.  V.  44,  suXoysTr?  roxjc,  xara^uiMvovg  u/j^ag  stands  in  the 
received  text.  This  clause  is  omitted  by  Tertullian,  Cyprian 
the  old  Italic  in  various  MSS.  and  other  Latin  authorities,  as 
well  as  by  Origen  seven  times.     It  is  ])ro'perly  omitted. 

Matt.  xxi.  1.  The  common  text  has  ^iyyiffav  ....  rjxdov. 
But  the  Peshito  and  Origen  have  Tiyyigsv rjxdsv. 

Matt.  xxi.  33,  avdsoj'jrog  rig.  The  old  Latin  and  Origen 
read  without  ng,  as  in  Luke  xx.  9.     And  they  are  right. 

Luke  ix.  23,  xai  a^aru  rov  eraugov  avroii  xaff  rjfxsgav.  The 
last  two  words  xad'  rifj^s^ocv  are  omitted  in  several  copies  of  the 
old  Latin  and  in  Origen. 

John  V.  26,  on  ouTog  Igiv  dXrjdug  6  X^igSg.  The  dXrjdcog  is 
rightly  omitted  by  the  old  Latin,  Origen,  and  other  autho- 
rities. 

In  the  Acts  and  Epistles  the  following  may  suffice  : — 

Acts  xvi.  16.  Here  the  common  text  has  «sD/xa  vh&uivog. 
The  old  Latin  and  Origen  have  TvdcAim,  perhaps  rightly. 

1  Corinth,  xv.  29.  The  received  text  has  ri  xa/  (Sa-Trri^ovrai 
v'!rs§  rSjv  vsKPojv.  The  old  Latin,  Ephrem,  and  Origen  have  uTsg 
avTuv^  perhaps  properly. 

But  though  Origen  was  disinclined  to  follow  the  practices 
of  those  transcribers,  revisers,  and  arbitrary  critics,  who  made 
very  free  with  the  New  Testament  text,  he  did  not  himself 


64  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

wholly  refrain  from  conjectural  emendation  of  it.  Yet  he 
did  not  insert  what  appeared  most  probable  to  him  in  the  text 
itself.  He  put  it  into  his  commentaries.  Wise  as  this  pro- 
cedure was,  it  gave  rise  to  corruptions ;  for  his  admirers  and 
followers  took  and  placed  either  in  the  margin  of  MSS.  or 
between  the  lines,  many  of  these  conjectural  emendations, 
whence  they  were  afterwards  copied  by  transcribers  into  the 
text  itself.  Hence  several  varieties  of  reading  which  appear 
even  in  existing  MSS.  were  derived  from  the  works  of 
Origen. 

But  althougli  the  Greek  text  as  seen  through  Origen's 
quotations  corresponds  to  its  state  as  observed  in  earlier  Greek 
fathers  and  in  the  oldest  translators — though  the  peculiarities 
of  reading  found  in  the  earlier  fathers  and  most  ancient  ver- 
sions can  usually  be  paralleled  in  him — yet  we  do  not  say  that 
they  are  as  frequent  in  his  writings  as  we  should  have  expected 
them  to  be  had  they  simply  progressed  by  the  usual  multipli- 
cation of  copies.  Origen  himself  was  a  better  critic  than  any 
of  his  predecessors.  He  had  given  far  more  attention  to  the 
Scriptures,  Hence  there  is  little  doubt  that  he  did  something 
towards  restraining  the  arbitrary  procedure  he  had  observed. 
He  perpetuated  it  indeed  in  part,  but  he  did  something  to 
check  it.  Doubtless  he  amended  in  some  parts  such  copies  as 
passed  through  his  hands.  So  little  however  was  his  influence 
felt,  that  the  corruption  was  in  his  day  much  the  same  as  in 
that  of  his  preceptor  Clement. 

The  same  state  of  the  text  as  is  observed  in  the  writings 
of  the  fathers  belonging  to  the  second  century,  especially  in 
the  Peshito  version,  is  contained  in  an  existing  MS.  We 
allude  to  the  Cambridge  MS.  or  D.,  which  throws  much  light 
on  the  history  of  the  text  during  the  period  we  are  investigat- 
ing. For  though  it  was  written  in  the  sixth  century,  yet  the 
text  at  the  basis  of  it  belongs  to  the  commencement  of  the 
third.     This  is  apparent  from  the  minute  and  masterly  exami- 


IIISTOEY   OF   THE   TEXT.  65 

nation  to  which  Hug  has  subjected  it,*  shewing  that  the  pecu- 
liarities of  its  text  owed  its  origin  to  the  causes  already- 
mentioned.  Hence  we  find  similar  corruptions  of  the  Greek 
text  in  it  to  those  in  the  Peshito,  Clement,  and  Origen.  But 
the  additions  and  insertions  made  in  it  are  larger  and  more 
strongly  marked,  not  only  because  it  was  taken  directly  from 
a  copy  or  copies  which  originated  after  those  current  in  the 
first  days  of  the  Peshito  and  old  Latin,  but  from  other  causes 
peculiar  to  itself. 

The  brief  sketch  now  given  of  the  Greek  text,  as  far  as  it 
can  be  gathered  from  the  fathers  and  the  oldest  versions,  will 
help  to  shew  what  it  was  in  the  second  century  and  to  the 
middle  of  the  third.  The  memorials  of  it  were  on  the  whole 
alike.  It  was  in  a  corrupt  condition,  to  which  various  causes 
had  contributed;  carelessness  probably  the  least.  Arbitrary- 
alterations  had  been  made  in  it.  The  difference  between 
MSS.  lay  not  so  much  in  the  nature  of  the  corruptions,  for 
here  there  was  a  general  resemblance,  as  in  the  number  of 
them.  One  had  more  passages  in  which  the  original  reading 
was  disfigured  than  another.  This  difference  in  the  number 
of  variations  must  have  depended  on  a  variety  of  causes,  on 
time,  country,  the  use  for  which  a  MS.  was  destined  or  to 
which  it  was  applied,  the  number  of  hands  through  which  it 
passed.  Many  copies  owed  their  peculiar  text  solely  to  the 
transcriber,  many  to  revisers,  many  to  their  possessors.  It  is 
likely  that  copies  containing  parts  of  the  New  Testament  in- 
tended for  public  reading  departed  most  from  the  original  text ; 
private  MSS.  for  individual  use,  the  least.  Although  therefore 
the  corruptions  of  the  text  as  it  was  current  in  the  first  half  of 
the  third  century  may  be  divided  into  various  classes,  we  must 
not  expect  particulars  that  can  be  ranged  under  each  class  in 
any  one  document.  Two  or  three  documents  must  be  taken 
*  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  124,  et  seq. 
VOL.  II.  F 


66  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

together,  out  of  which  all  the  classes,  with  particular  cases 
exemplifying  them,  may  be  collected. 

It  is  useless  to  speculate  on  the  country  or  countries  whence 
this  disordered  state  of  the  text  proceeded  at  first.  It  may 
have  been  in  Asia  and  Greece.  Probably  it  was  so.  Its  cha- 
racteristics in  different  lands  have  also  been  investigated,  but 
with  too  much  subtlety  to  be  distinctly  recognised  and  ad- 
mitted. Peculiar  corruptions,  it  is  thought,  prevailed  in  Asia, 
northern  Africa,  Egypt.  This  may  have  been  and  probably 
was  the  case  to  some  extent ;  but  not  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
make  the  distinctions  palpable  and  marked. 


f 


CHAPTER  VI. 


HISTOKY  OF  THE  TEXT  AFTER  THE  MIDDLE  OF 
THE  THIRD  CENTURY. 

It  has  been  thought  by  Hug  and  others,  that  after  the  first 
half  of  the  third  century  the  text  began  to  assume  a  different 
form.  Whether  this  form  brought  it  nearer  to  the  original  one 
is  not  now  the  question.  Is  it  a  fact  that  it  underwent  per- 
ceptible and  extensive  changes  after  the  period  stated  ?  If  so, 
the  inquiry  arises,  how  was  this  effected  ?  Was  it  owing  to 
mere  accident ;  or  were  other  causes  in  operation  adequate  to 
produce  it  ?  Did  criticism  begin  now,  having  been  inoperative 
before  ?  How  is  it  known  or  supposed  that  after  the  middle 
of  the  third  century  revision  came  to  be  practised.  It  has  been 
gathered  from  an  examination  of  the  oldest  existing  MSS.,  ver- 
sions, and  interpreters  belonging  to  the  second,  third,  fourth, 
fifth,  and  sixth  centuries.  Looking  at  these  together,  and 
comparing  them  with  one  another,  critics  have  speculated 
largely  about  their  character  and  peculiarities.  We  do  not 
deny  that  they  indicate,  for  the  first  time,  something  dififerent 
in  the  later  from  the  earlier  fate  of  the  text — a  difference 
between  the  treatment  it  met  with  in  the  second  century  for 
example,  from  that  to  which  it  was  subjected  in  the  third. 
But  we  demur  to  the  conclusion  that  new  causes  in  the 
third  century,  or  if  it  be  preferred  in  the  fourth,  produced 
new  effects.     A.  palpahle  transition  from  one  period  to  another 


68  HIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

has  been  made,  which  tends  to  convey  a  false  notion  of  the 
state  of  the  case.  The  same  causes  were  in  operation  before 
as  after  the  last  half  of  the  third  centmy.  There  was  always 
some  attention  paid  to  the  text,  with  a  view  to  keep  it  free 
from  gross  corruptions.  But  now  more  persons  began  to  cor- 
rect it.  Causes  hitherto  operating  produced  fruit  more  exten- 
sively now.  There  were  more  critics  and  grammarians  in 
Alexandria,  who  exerted  an  influence  on  the  books  of  neigh- 
bouring countries.  But  we  must  not  think  of  anything  like 
a  general  revision  of  the  text  conducted  on  certain  principles. 
The  revisions,  if  they  may  be  called  so,  were  partial,  fitful, 
arbitrary.  Indeed  the  term  revision  or  recension,  corresponding 
to  edition  in  a  printed  book,  is  inapplicable.  What  have  been 
termed  recensions  have  been  more  the  result  of  accidental  cir- 
cumstances than  oi  pervading  design. 

Bearing  in  mind  these  observations,  let  us  proceed  to  note 
the  state  of  opinion  among  the  leading  critics  respecting  such 
peculiarities  of  the  text  as  have  presented  themselves,  according 
to  their  opinion,  in  a  comparison  of  the  earliest  MSS.,  versions, 
and  interpreters,  with  one  another,  as  well  as  with  more  recent 
documents. 

The  question  suggested  itself  to  the  mind  of  speculating 
collators  and  editors,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  began  to  assume  a  form  distinguished  from 
the  earlier  one  by  characteristic  peculiarities  ?  The  old  answer 
was,  that  the  causes  already  in  operation  must  be  looked  to. 
Had  this  answer  been  deemed  satisfactory,  tlie  criticism  of  the 
New  Testament  would  not  have  been  in  its  present  state.  It 
would  not  have  passed  through  a  variety  of  phases. 

According  to  former  views  every  MS.  which  was  not  a 
copy  of  another,  every  ancient  version  which  proceeded  from  a 
MS.  of  this  kind,  every  citation  in  the  fathers  made  indepen- 
dently of  a  critical  source,  must  have  had  separate,  individual 
voices  J  and  the  leading  canon  of  criticism  would  have  been. 


irrSTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  69 

as  many  independent  MSS.,  versions,  and  citations,  so  many 
separate  authorities  are  there. 

But  when  critics  began  to  look  closely  at  the  phenomena, 
they  thought  of  philosophising  about  them.  In  the  sources 
of  New  Testament  criticism  they  met  with  so  many  harmoni- 
ous and  discordant  peculiarities  as  led  them  to  believe  that  the 
usual  causes  of  corruption  were  insufficient  to  account  for 
them.  The  documents  of  antiquity,  whether  they  be  MSS. 
or  versions  made  directly  from  the  original,  agree  with  one 
another  in  certain  characteristic  readings  ;  and  it  was  thought, 
therefore,  that  they  naturally  distributed  themselves  into 
classes.  It  is  true  that  this  general  agreement  does  not 
extend  through  all  the  parts  of  a  MS.  or  version ;  yet  it  can 
be  traced  in  portions  of  them.  It  runs  througli  whole  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  occasionally  even  through  the  entire 
canon.  If  a  peculiar  various  reading,  for  example,  be  found  in 
a  MS.  or  version  ;  the  same  will  commonly  exist  in  a  series 
or  class  of  MSS.  and  versions. 

It  was  also  supposed  that  such  harmony  and  disagreement 
in  the  sources  of  New  Testament  criticism  is  capable  of 
geographical  and  ethnographical  determination.  Egyptian, 
Byzantine,  Palestinian,  Western  writers  cite  according  to 
forms  of  the  text  characteristically  similar.  The  same  holds 
good  of  all  the  leading  MSS.  whose  country  is  known,  and  of 
all  primary  versions.  Their  text  varies  according  to  the  dif- 
ferent places  where  it  belonged.  Taking  a  certain  circuit  of 
country,  the  characteristic  readings  of  such  documents  as  first 
appeared  there,  or  of  such  as  were  derived  from  the  primary 
memorials  belonging  to  the  locality  in  question,  are  alike. 
They  present  a  corresponding  configuration,  for  example,  in 
the  West  generally. 

Such  peculiarities  appeared  in  the  eyes  of  critics  to  betray 
design.     They  seemed  to  be  the  result  of  a  critical  handling  ot 


70  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

the  text,  and  that  too  not  conducted  arbitrarily,  but  agreeably 
to  certain  modes.  Local  causes  contributed  something;  but 
it  was  conjectured  they  had  no  more  than  a  secondary  and 
inferior  influence.  The  main  cause  was  thought  to  be  an 
industrious  revision  of  the  text.  Various  individuals  seeing 
the  corrupted  state  of  the  original  records  in  relation  to  their 
words,  and  lamenting,  as  Origen  did,  that  the  codices  were  so 
very  unlike  one  another,  were  prompted  to  do  something  to 
remedy  the  defect.  They  were  not  content  to  sit  still,  and 
allow  it  to  continue  and  increase.  Hence  critical  revisions  of 
the  text  were  undertaken  by  different  scholars  in  different 
countries,  quite  independently  of  one  another,  so  early  as  the 
third  century.  They  did  not,  as  we  might  suppose,  apply  the 
very  same  means  to  the  correction  of  the  disorder.  Had  they 
done  so,  the  results  would  not  have  been  characteristically 
diverse.  After  they  had  accomplished  their  task,  the  improved 
copy  would  be  multiplied  by  transcripts  and  circulated  through- 
out the  region  where  the  reviser  himself  was,  as  well  as 
throughout  a  wider  territory  connected  by  ecclesiastical  and 
literary  influences, 

Such  was  the  state  at  Avhich  opinion  had  arrived  through 
the  speculations  of  Griesbach  and  Hug.  The  latter,  improv- 
ing upon  the  system  devised  by  his  predecessor,  brought  it  to 
something  like  what  has  been  stated,  choosing  the  middle  of 
the  third  century  for  the  time  when  the  text  in  different 
countries  began  to  assume  different  appearances  and  forms. 

Bentley  was  the  first  who  gave  tolerably  plain  intimations 
of  a  classification  of  MSS.  It  is  strange  that  the  idea  did  not 
suggest  itself,  or  at  least  was  not  expressed  by  Mill.  But 
Bengel  perceived  more  clearly  than  his  predecessor  certain 
characteristic  peculiarities  according  to  which  the  critical 
materials  of  the  New  Testament  might  be  classified.  Yet  he 
had    a   faint   idea    of  the    fact,    compared    with    Griesbach. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  71 

Semler  saw  it  much  more  distinctly,  though  by  no  means  so 
definitely  as  would  have  led  him  to  apply  it  to  any  extent.  * 

The  hypothesis  was  afterwards  developed  by  Griesbach 
with  great  ingenuity.  He  was  the  first  to  give  precision  and 
fixedness  to  the  hints  which  had  been  previously  thrown  out 
by  Bengal  and  Semler;  by  investigating  the  subject  with 
much  critical  tact  and  acuteness.  The  characteristic  forms  ot 
the  text  he  called  after  Semler  recensions^  a  name  which  has 
been  more  generally  adopted  than  any  other,  whether  family^ 
class,  or  'Ubocig,  i.  e.  editio.  Perhaps  some  other  appellation  such 
as  class,  would  have  been  more  appropriate.  Certainly  it  is 
less  liable  to  misconception.  When  therefore  one  speaks  of 
recensions  of  the  New  Testament  text,  he  means,  according 
to  Griesbach's  view,  the  different  conformations  in  which  it 
was  commonly  circulated  in  different  circles  and  countries, 
arising  either  from  critical  revisions  conducted  on  a  definite 
plan,  or  from  certain  general  and  local  causes. 

This  definite  arrangement   has  indirectly  facilitated    the 

practical  criticism  of  the  Greek  text,  for  MSS.  versions,  and 

*  "  Codices  nee  sunt  omnes  ex  una  recensione  Graeca  descripti  nee 
antiquioris  recensionis  (qua  utebatur  Origenes,  Eusebius,  et  Latina 
translatio  ante  Hieronymum,  ex  qua  et  Copta  fere  est,  et  quEe  ex 
Syriaca  posteriori  adnotatur)  multa  exempla  ad  nos  venerunt.  Haec 
fuit  simplicior,  rudior,  antiquior  recensio  ;  brevior  etiam  et  minus  ver- 
bosa  ;  ab  ea  recedit  alia,  quae  fere  hoc  eodem  tempore  Origenis  sub 
initium  certe  seculi  quarti  in  Orientis  provinciis  solebant  jam  describi. 
Antiochiaa  et  per  Orientem  seculo  quarto  obtinuerit  recensio  Graeca 
alia,  recentior,  impurior.  Chrysostomus  et  seriores  scriptores  hoc  tautum 
textu  utuntur,  et  difFerunt  fere  ab  eo,  quern  secutac  erant  vetustiores 
translationes.  Diversa  Graeca  recensio,  qua;  olim  locum  habuit,  pro 
provinciarum  diversitate  fere  obtinuit ;  Alexandrinam  facile  distinguere 
licet,  ^gyptiacis  scriptoribus  et  Origenis  discipulis  fere  communem,  ad 
Syros  Coptas  jEthiopas  etiam  vulgatam  ;  alia  per  Orientem  (Antiochiae 
atque  inde  Constantinopoli,  Ike.)  valebat ;  alia  per  Occidentem.  Inde 
cum  Origenis  ct  Pelagii  odium  crevisset,  ecclesiastica  quaedam  et  mixta 
recensio  scnsim  orta  est  e  plurium  provinciarum  codicibus,  qua  adhuc 
uti  solemus." — App;iratus  ad  liberatem  N.  T.  iutciprctationem,  p.  45. 


72 


BIBLICAL    CKITICISM. 


patristic  quotations  are  no  longer  coimted,  and  reckoned  ac- 
cording to  their  individual  independent  voices  ;  but  the  entire 
mass  of  materials  is  separated  into  classes,  which  again  are 
either  subdivided  or  may  be  so.  No  recension  of  the  text  has 
been  preserved  pure  and  unaltered  in  MSS.  versions,  or  copies 
used  by  the  fathers.  All  representatives  of  the  recensions  now 
existing  are  more  or  less  corrupted.  From  coming  in  contact 
with  others,  each  has  partially  lost  its  pristine  form.  There  is 
a  mixture  greater  or  less  in  the  texts  of  such  copies  as  are  the 
offspring  and  known  types  of  the  different  recensions.  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  alterations  have  been  introduced  by  the  carelessness 
or  caprice  of  transcribers.  To  all  the  documents  belonging  to 
each  recension  one  voice  only  belongs.  The  numerous  MSS., 
versions,  and  citations,  including  all  their  degenerate  offspring 
which  constitute  one  recension,  have  but  one  voice  assigned 
them  in  determining  the  original  reading  of  a  passage. 
The  following  is  Griesbach's  system  of  recensions : — 

1.  The  Alexandrine  recension,  which  proceeded  from  Egypt 
and  spread  over  the  gTcat  majority  of  countries  in  the  East. 
This  is  exhibited  by  the  New  Testament  citations  in  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria, Isidore  of  Pelusium  and  others ;  and  in  the  eighth 
century  by  Johannes  Damascenus  or  John  of  Damascus.  The 
versions  of  it  are  the  Memphitic  and  Philoxenian  lohoUy^  the 
Ethiopic  and  Armenian  in  part.  The  uncial  MSS.  belonging 
to  it  are  B.  (in  the  last  chapters  of  Matthew,  and  in  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John),  C.  L.  in  the  gospels,  with  the  cursive  ones 
33,  102,  106 ;  in  the  Pauline  epistles  the  uncial  codices  A.  B. 
C.  and  in  a  mixed  form  the  cursive  17,  46,  47.  According  to 
Griesbach,  this  recension  was  made  in  the  second  half  of  the 
second  century,  for  it  was  diffused  with  all  its  characteristic 
peculiarities  at  the  commencement  of  the  third  century.  Its 
main  characteristic  feature  is  grammatical  purity  and  accm'acy. 

2.  Another  recension  assumed  by  the  same  critic  is  called 


HISTORY   OF    THE   TEXT.  73 

the  occidental^  represented  by  the  text  followed  in  the  quota- 
tions of  Cjprian,  Tertullian,  the  Latin  translator  of  Irenaeus, 
Hilary  of  Poictiers,  Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  Ambrose,  and  Au- 
gustine. Among  the  ancient  versions  it  is  represented  by 
all  the  Latin  ones,  (if  there  were  several),  the  Sahidic  and 
Jerusalem-Syriac.  It  is  contained  in  the  Greek-Latin  MSS. 
generally;  in  the  gospels,  by  D.  in  particular,  and  by  1, 
13,  69,  118,  124,  131,  157;  in  the  Pauline  epistles  by  D. 

E.  F.  G.  Griesbach  sujDposes  that  it  originated  in  the 
second  half  of  the  second  century,  either  at  Carthage  or  Rome, 
and  spread  over  nearly  the  entire  west.  Its  main  feature  is 
exegetical.  Hence  it  is  distinguished  by  paraphrases,  glosses, 
additions  of  every  kind,  transpositions  of  words  and  clauses, 
all  intended  to  elucidate  the  text.  In  it  also  are  the  unusual, 
harsh,  Hebraising,  and  grammatically  incorrect  expressions  of 
the  original  text. 

3.  The  Constantinopolitan  recension,  which  appears  in  the 
writings  of  almost  all  the  ecclesiastical  authors  that  belonged 
to  Greece,  Asia  Minor,  and  other  neighbouring  countries,  from 
the  end  of  the  fourth  till  the  close  of  the  sixth  century.  Of 
ancient  versions,  the  Gothic  and  Slavonic  have  flowed  from  its 
text.     Of  the  uncial  MkSS.  of  the  gospels  it  appears  in  A.  E. 

F.  G.  H.  S ;  and  the  Moscow  MSS.  of  Paul's  epistles. 
This  recension  arose  out  of  the  other  two.  It  is  properly  an 
amalgamation  of  both.  Oriental  MSS.  got  into  the  west,  and 
occidental  ones  into  the  east,  so  that  the  two  recensions  deno- 
minated the  Western  and  Alexandrine  were  mixed  with  each 
other.  The  leading  peculiarity  of  this  recension  is,  that  it 
exhibits  more  Graecisms  than  the  Alexandrine,  i.  e.  it  rejects 
still  more  Hebraisms  and  harshnesses  than  the  latter,  while  it 
adopts  more  explanatory  glosses.  It  approaches  nearer  the 
received  text  than  any  other. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  old  Syriac  version  has  not  been 
mentioned  as  belonging  to  any  of  the  three  recensions.     Ac- 


74  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

cording  to  Griesbacli  its  text  agrees  in  many  cases  with  the 
Alexandrine,  in  more  with  the  Western,  in  some  with  the 
Constantinopolitan,  Hence,  its  text  was  revised  at  different 
times,  receiving  contributions  from  different  Greek  MSS.  So 
too  the  text  of  Chrysostom  in  the  gospels  is  a  mixtm-e  of  various 
recensions.  There  are  several  MSS.  too  whose  text  has  arisen 
from  the  readings  of  two  or  three  recensions  of  which  P.  Q.  T. 
are  examples,  agreeing  as  they  do  sometimes  with  the  Alex- 
andrine, sometimes  with  the  Western.  There  are  MSS.  besides 
which,  though  belonging  in  the  great  majority  of  their  readings 
to  the  Constantinopolitan  recension,  contain  at  the  same  time 
mixed  readings  out  of  the  other  two,  such  as  K.  M.  10,  11,  17, 
22,  28,  36,  40,  57,  61,  63,  64,  72,  91, 108, 127, 142, 209, 229, 
235. 

Such  an  amalgamation  has  been  called  by  a  disciple  of 
Griesbacli  the  younger  Constantinopolitan^  and  exalted  into  a 
fourth  recension.  The  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  Sahidic,  and 
Jerusalem-Syriac  versions  are  said  to  contain  interpolated 
readings  belonging  to  this  younger  Constantinopolitan,  as  also 
the  writings  of  Theophylact  and  (Ecumenius.* 

According  to  Griesbach,  the  Alexandrine  recension  was 
made  in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century,  at  the  time  the 
two  divisions  of  the  New  Testament  books  called  the  Euay- 
ysAiov  and  'AtoVt-oXoj  were  put  together. 

As  to  the  occidental,  he  admitted  at  one  time  that  the 
name  recension  was  improperly  applied  to  it  as  well  as  to 
the  Byzantine,  because  neither  was  the  revision  of  any  parti- 
cular critic. 

The  occidental  originated  about  the  same  time  as  the 
Alexandrine,  being  derived  from  ancient  copies  of  single  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  or  from  partial  collections  of  those  books, 

*  Prolegomena  in  New  Testament,  vol.  i.  ed.  Schulz,  p.  70,  et  seq.  ; 
and  Curarum  in  historiam  textus  Graeci  epistolarum  Pauli  specimen  1. 
Opuscula  Academica  by  Gabler,  vol.  ii.  p.  1,  et  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  75 

which  were  retained  or  preserved  after  the  union  of  the  eOay- 
y'sXiov  and  dToffroXog  by  the  Latins  or  Western  christians. 

As  to  the  Byzantine,  it  was  made  up  out  of  the  other  two 
in  the  fourth  century,  and  gradually  changed  in  the  two  fol- 
lowing. 

But  it  is  not  easy  to  give  a  concise  and  accurate  statement 
of  Griesbach's  classification.  In  various  publications  he  did 
not  always  agree  with  himself.     He  wavered  and  altered. 

The  classification  of  authorities  thus  proposed,  though 
ingenious  and  plausible,  was  criticised  and  objected  to  by  many 
succeeding  critics.  In  Germany  it  was  either  found  fault  with 
or  modified  by  Eichhorn,  Michaelis,  Hug,  Scliolz,  Schulz, 
Binck,  G abler,  Tischendorf,  Beiche,  De  Wette,  and  others. 
Dr.  Laurence  in  our  own  country  assailed  it  with  much  acute- 
ness  and  critical  ability.  It  has  also  been  attacked  by  Norton 
in  America.  Criticised  therefore  as  it  has  been  by  so  many 
writers,  and  attacked  from  so  many  points,  it  must  be  weak 
and  vulnerable.  Its  credit  is  indeed  gone.  Instead  of  stand- 
ing the  test  of  public  opinion,  it  has  been  cast  down.  In  his 
last  publication  the  distinguished  critic  himself  all  but  aban- 
doned it.* 

The  chief  objection  to  it  is  the  distinction  made  between 
the  Alexandrine  and  Western  recensions.  But  this  was  vir- 
tually given  up  by  himself  after  the  appearance  of  Hug's  clas- 
sification. 

Let  us  see  what  Hug's  system  is, 

1.  In  the  MSS.  of  the  gospels  D.  1,  13,  69,  124;  of  the 
epistles  D.  E.  F.  G.,  and  of  the  Apocalypse  D.  E.  as  also  in 
the  old  Latin  version  and  the  Sahidic,  he  finds  a  text  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  the  occidental  recension  of  Griesbach. 
This  was  the  unrevised  and  corrupted  state  of  the  text  which 
had  been  gradually  formed  till  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 

*  Commentarius  Criticus  in  textum  graecum  Novi  Testamenti, 
Particula  ii.  p.  41,  et  secj. 


76  BIBLICAL   CUITICISM. 

To  such  disordered  form  of  the  text  he  gives  the  name  xom 
'ixhosig.  It  was  multiplied  by  the  Alexandrine  scribes  and 
circulated  chieflj  in  the  west,  where  MSS.  representing  it  were 
in  common  use  long  after  remedies  had  been  applied  to  the 
disorder.  Hug  reckons  the  old  Syriac  version,  and  even  the 
citations  of  Clement  and  Origen  as  belonging  to  it.  In  both 
respects  he  differs  from  Griesbach.  The  latter  however  after- 
wards assented  in  a  great  degree  to  Hug's  view  of  the  Peshito. 
But  with  regard  to  Clement  and  Origen  he  hesitated.  He  would 
only  allow  that  the  two  Alexandrine  fathers  approximated  in 
some  respects  to  the  occidental  recension,  and  shewed  that 
Origen  used  a  western  MS.  merely  in  his  commentary  on 
Matthew.* 

2.  This  first  period  of  the  text  was  succeeded  by  a  very 
different  one,  which  began  with  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
About  that  time  a  limit  was  put  to  the  licentiousness  which 
had  prevailed.  The  call  for  a  revision  was  so  urgent,  that 
three  men  undertook  the  task  in  different  countries  almost  con- 
temporaneously. 

Hesychius  in  Egypt  attempted  an  amendment  of  the  text. 
Lucian  in  Syria  made  another  recension  which  spread  from 
Syria  over  Asia  Minor,  passed  the  Bosphorus  and  became 
current  in  Thrace  and  at  Byzantium. 

Origen's  emendation  obtained  in  Palestine. 

The  Hesychian  appears  in  B.  C.  L.  of  the  gospels ;  A.  B,  C. 
17,  46,  of  the  epistles;  in  the  Memphitic  version,  the  writings 
of  Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  the  monks  Marcus  and 
Macarius,  and  Cosmas  Indicopleustes. 

The  Lucian  recension  also  called  the  Constantlnopolitan 
appears  in  E.  F.  G.  H.  S.  V.  b.  h.  of  the  gospels ;  G.  of  Paul's 
epistles,  and  almost  all  the. Moscow  MSS.  of  Matthaei.  The 
Slavonian  and  Gothic  versions  belong  to  it. 

The  Origenian  recension  is  contained  in  A.  K.  M.  42, 106, 

*  Meletemata  i.  and  ii.  in  Commeutarius  Criticus,  part  ii. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  77 

114,  116,  10  of  Matthaei  in  the  gospels,  in  the  Philoxenian 
Syriac,  the  writings  of  Theodoret  and  Chrysostoni.* 

Griesbach  made  some  valid  objections  to  parts  of  this 
system,  to  which  others  have  been  added  by  Scholz,  Rinck, 
Tischendorf,  De  Wette,  &c. 

The  Hesychian  recension  does  not  rest  on  a  good  historical 
basis.  It  seems  to  have  had  a  very  limited  circulation  even  in 
the  comitry  where  it  was  made.  After  subtracting  the  pas- 
sages quoted  by  Hug  which  refer  to  the  Septuagint,  there  are 
but  one  in  Jerome  and  one  in  Pope  Gelasius,  which  speak  of 
the  emendation  of  the  New  Testament  made  by  Hesychius, 
and  these  are  unfavourable  to  the  idea  of  its  wide  extension. 

The  passages  are  these  : — ■'  I  omit  the  codices  named  after 
Lucian  and  Hesychius  which  the  perverse  contentiousness  of  a 
few  persons  upholds.  These  critics  could  not  amend  anything 
in  the  whole  Old  Testament  after  the  Septuagint,  nor  did  it 
avail  them  to  do  so  in  the  New ;  since  Scripture  formerly 
translated  into  the  languages  of  many  nations  shews  that  their 
additions  are  false. "f 

Again,  in  the  decrees  of  a  council  held  under  Pope  Gelasius 
A.D.  494,  it  is  declared  that  "  the  gospels  which  Lucian  and 
Hesychius  falsified  are  apocryphal.":): 

Surely  this  language  is  unfavourable  to  the  idea  of  an 
extensively  adopted  revision  of  the  New  Testament  made  by 
Hesychius  in  Egypt.  It  implies  that  what  he  added  to  the 
text  was  false,  which  is  not  like  a  reviser  but  an  interpolator. 

*  See  Hug's  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  168,  et  seq. 

t  "  Praetermitto  eos  codices,  quos  a  Luciano  et  Hesychio  nmicupatos 
paucorum  hominum  asserit  perversa  contentio  :  quibus  utique  nee  in  toto 
Veteri  Instrumento  post  lxx  interpretes  emendare  quid  licuit,  nee  in 
Novo  profuit  emendasse  :  quum  multarum  gentium  linguis  Scriptura 
ante  translata  doceat  false  esse  quae  addita  sunt."  Praefat.  in  quatuor 
Evang.  ad  Damasum. 

\  "  Evangelia,  quae  falsavit  Lucianus  et  Hesychius  apocrypha." 
Decret.  P.  I.  distiuct.  15,  §  27. 


78  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Besides  there  is  no  good  ground  for  the  suspicion  that  such 
additions  were  made  to  the  text  of  the  copies  derived  by  Hug 
from  Hesychius  and  Lucian.  The  suspicion  does  not  fall  on 
them,  but  rather  on  D.  E.  F.  G.  The  fruits  of  Hesychius's 
labours  must  have  been  small,  by  no  means  amounting  to  a 
recension  of  the  text,  nor  is  it  likely  that  they  have  continued 
down  till  the  present  time.  And  then  that  form  of  the  text 
ascribed  to  him  appears  to  be  in  reality  older,  since  Origen 
and  even  Clement  exhibit  the  Alexandrine  recension. 

Besides,  the  principal  MSS.  of  the  xo/1/95  g'xSotr/g,  viz.  D. 
the  Laudian  E.,  and  the  Clermont  D.,  are  stichometrically 
arranged  ;  whereas  the  stichometrical  division  was  first  adopted 
or  invented  by  Euthalius  at  Alexandria  soon  after  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century.  Hence  the  revision  of  Hesychius  did 
not  supersede  the  -/.oivri  'Uhosic  even  at  Alexandria. 

The  recension  of  Lucian  likewise  wants  a  historical  basis, 
as  may  be  seen  from  the  preceding  testimonies.  It  does  not 
appear  to  have  had  any  general  influence,  but  was  confined  to  a 
narrow  circle  of  usage.  Jerome's  testimony  is  against  the  view 
of  it  taken  by  Hug,  for  he  says,  "  Lucian  laboured  so  much  in 
the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  that  even  to  tliis  day  some  copies 
of  the  Scriptures  are  called  Lucianic."* 

Again,  it  is  improbable  that  Origen  undertook  to  amend  the 
y.oivri  'ixbocig.  The  passages  on  which  Hug  builds  are  in  Jerome's 
commentaries  on  Matthew  and  Galatians.  "  Li  some  Latin 
copies  it  is  added,  we2'^^e^/^MS/  whereas  in  the  Greek  ones,  and 
especially  those  of  Adamantius  and  Pierius,  this  clause  is  not 
written."  t 

*  "  Lucianus tantum  in  Scripturarum  studio  laboravit 

ut  usque  nunc  qtiaedam  e.vemplaria  Scripturarum  nuncupentur." — De 
viris  illustr.  c.  77. 

I  "  In  quibusdam  Latinis  codicibus  additum  est  :  nequefilius  ;  quum 
in  Graecis,  et  maxime  Adamantii  et  Pierii  exemplaribus,  hoc  non  habea- 
tur  adscriptum." — Praefat.  ad.  Matth.  xxiv.  36. 


HISTORY    OF   THE   TEXT.  79 

"  We  have  omitted  this  because  not  found  in  the  copies  of 
Adamantius."* 

Here  ''the  copies  of  Origen"  mean  no  more  than  some 
which  he  had  used  and  sanctioned,  and  were  therefore  valu- 
able. Origen  himself  employs  words  implying  that  he  did 
not  make  a  revision  of  the  copies  of  the  New  Testament.f  He 
was  now  old,  worn  out  with  his  previous  labours  and  the  per- 
secutions he  was  exposed  to.  Hence  it  is  extremely  improbable 
that  he  did  anything  more  than  make  a  few  corrections  in  some 
copies  which  he  used.  The  MSS.  of  the  Origenian  recension 
are  according  to  Hug,  A.  K.  M.  42,  106,  114,  116,  Mosc.  10, 
whose  text  however  was  not  employed  by  Origen  himself  in 
his  writings.  There  is  no  peculiarity  in  the  readings  of  these 
documents  to  constitute  a  recension,  or  at  least  there  is  too 
little  to  do  so.  They  agree  almost  always  with  D.  or  with 
B.  L.  or  with  the  oriental  (Alexandrine)  class,  as  Griesbach 
has  observed. 

Thus  the  system  of  recensions  proposed  by  this  eminent 
critic  has  not  suiBcient  authority  to  commend  it  to  general 
approbation.  It  rests  on  slender  grounds  which  history  does 
not  sustain. 

Eichhorn's  recension-system  was  substantially  the  same  as 
Hug's.  He  assumes  the  xoivr^  'UUgk;  or  unrevised  disordered 
state  of  the  text,  in  the  second  and  till  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  This  %mri  sxdoaig  prevailed  throughout  Christendom, 
the  only  difference  between  Asiatic,  Egyptian,  and  Grecian 
MSS.  being  that  the  first  had  suffered  fewer  arbitrary  alterations 
than  the  last  two,  because  the  Greek  language  was  not  so  well 
understood  by  the  ecclesiastics  and  copyists  of  Asia  as  in 
Egypt  and  Greece. 

*  "  Hoc  quia  in  exemplaribus  Adamantii  non  habetur,  omisimus."— 
Ad  Galat.  iii.  1. 

■f"  "  In  exemplaribus  autem  N.  T.  hoc  ipsum  me  posse  facere  sine 
periculo  non  putavi." — Tom.  xv.  in  Matth.  vol.  iii.  671. 


80  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

After  the  middle  of  tlie  third  ceiituiy  Hcsychius  and 
Lucian  made  recensions  of  the  text — the  former  revising  it  as 
it  was  current  in  Egypt,  the  latter  doing  the  same  to  it  as 
existing  in  Asia  from  Syria  to  Constantinople.  From  this 
onward  there  were  three  states  of  the  text  different  from  one 
another.  (1.)  The  African  or  Alexandrine.  (2.)  The  Asiatic 
or  Constantinopolitan.     (3.)  One  compounded  of  both. 

To  the  first  belong  the  readings  placed  by  Thomas  of 
Harkel  in  the  margin  of  the  Philoxenian  version,  the  Jeru- 
salem-Syriac  version,  the  Memphitic,  the  Sahidic,  the  Ethiopic, 
the  Armenian.  Of  MSS.  A.  B.  C.  D.  L.  &c.  &c.  in  the 
gospels ;  A.  B.  C.  E.  in  the  Acts ;  A.  B.  C.  D.  H.  &c.  in 
the  Pauline  epistles.  To  the  Asiatic  belong  the  Gothic  and 
Slavonic  versions  ;  the  MSS.  E.  F.  G.  H.  M.  S.  in  the  gospels ; 
63,  67,  &c.  in  the  Acts ;  1,  63,  67,  &c.  in  the  Pauline  epistles. 
Various  causes  enumerated  by  Eichhorn  contributed  to  intro- 
duce alterations  into  the  Hesychian  and  Lucianic  texts.  The 
biblical  text  continued  thus  till  the  seventh  century,  after  which 
no  more  critical  labours  were  bestowed  on  it  till  after  the 
invention  of  printing.  Eichhorn  differs  from  Hug  in  denying 
the  existence  of  an  Origenian  recension." 

The  same  objections  lie  against  parts  of  this  system  as 
have  been  stated  against  similar  parts  of  Hug's.  Too  much 
importance  is  attached  to  the  recensions  of  Hesychius  and 
Lucian.  They  were  by  no  means  of  the  extent  here  assigned 
to  them. 

According  to  Michaelis  four  principal  editions  have  existed. 

1.  The  Western,  to  which  belong  the  Latin  version  and 
the  quotations  of  the  Latin  fathers,  including  those  who  lived 
in  Africa. 

2.  The  Alexandrine  or  Egyptian  edition.  With  this 
coincide  the  quotations  of  Origen  and  the  Coptic  (Memphitic) 
version. 

*  Einleit.  in  das  Neue  Testament,  vol.  iv.  p.  278,  et  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  81 

3.  The  Edessene  edition,  comprehending  the  MSS.  from 
which  the  old  Syriac  version  was  made. 

All  these  three  editions  harmonise  very  frequently  with  one 
another. 

4.  The  Byzantine  edition.  Almost  all  the  Moscow  MSS. 
belong  to  this  or  rather  to  the  later  Byzantine  edition,  the 
quotations  of  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact,  and  the  Slavonic 
version.  * 

Many  objections  lie  against  tliis  classification.  It  is  one 
of  the  most  improbable  that  has  been  proposed.  Although  it 
is  obviously  meant  to  be  an  improvement  on  Griesbach's,  it 
cannot  be  so  regarded.  Most  of  the  remarks  made  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  latter  will  apply  to  Michaelis's. 

The  system  of  Nolan  consists  of  three  recensions — the 
Egyptian,  the  Palestine,  and  the  Byzantine.  Latin  versions, 
or  rather  varieties  of  the  Latin  version,  were  made  from  MSS. 
belonging  to  each  of  the  three.  That  contained  in  the  Bres- 
cian  MS.  is  the  most  ancient.  But  the  text  of  the  Brescian 
MS.  agrees  with  the  Byzantine,  and  as  the  most  ancient  of  the 
three  texts  should  prevail  over  the  other  two,  the  Byzantine 
text  is  the  most  faithful  representative  of  the  primitive  one. 
The  Egyptian  text  was  imported  by  Eusebius  of  Vercelli  into 
the  west,  and  is  represented  by  the  Vercelli  MS.  of  the  Latin 
version ;  while  the  Palestine  was  republished  by  Euthalius  at 
Alexandria,  and  has  the  Vulgate  of  Jerome  corresponding 
to  itt 

Here  an  antiquity  is  ascribed  to  the  Latin  version  as  it 
exists  in  the  Brescian  MS.  which  does  not  belong  to  it.  The  cod. 
Brixianus  belongs  to  the  Itala,  i.e.  it  is  one  of  those  copies  of 
the  old  Latin  which  were  revised  after  Greek  MSS.  and  circu- 
lated in  northern  Italy.     The  cod.  Brixianus  itself  is  scarcely 

*  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  by  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  p.  175,  et  seq. 
I  Inquiry  into  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  or  received  text  of 
the  New  Testament. 

VOL.  II.  a 


82  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

older  than  the  sixth  century,  while  the  cod.  Vercellensis  be- 
longs to  the  fourth.  There  is  no  good  reason  for  making  the 
condition  of  the  text  represented  by  the  former  older  than  that 
in  the  latter.  The  reverse  is  the  fact.  The  cod.  Vercellensis 
contains  the  old  Latin  unrevised^  and  since  it  was  made  in  the 
second  century  the  basis  of  the  text  is  very  ancient.  But  the 
cod.  Brixianus  contains  the  Italic  revision  of  the  same  old 
Latin  or  vetus.  In  it  is  found  the  old  Latin  revised  after  MSS. 
which  were  then  coming  into  use  in  northern  Italy — later  and 
worse  Greek  MSS.  than  those  from  which  the  version  itself 
was  originally  made — MSS.  of  the  (so-called)  Constantino- 
politan  cast  with  which  the  Gothic  version  generally  accords. 
Hence  it  will  be  seen  that  the  importance  attached  by  Nolan 
to  the  cod.  Brixianus,  and  the  resemblance  of  its  text  to  the 
Constantinopolitan  recension  appear  in  a  most  fallacious  form 
in  his  system.     The  system  itself  is  therefore  untenable. 

Scholz  proposed  a  system  very  different  from  those  of  Hug 
and  Griesbach.  ^ 

He  finds  two  recensions,  the  Constantinopolitan  and  the 
Alexandrine.  In  this  way  the  western  and  Alexandrine 
families  of  Griesbach  are  grouped  tocher  under  the  one  head 
Alexandrine.  To  the  former  belong  almost  all  the  MSS.  made 
in  the  last  eight  centuries,  the  Philoxenian,  Gothic,  Georgian, 
and  Slavonic  versions,  as  also  almost  all  the  fathers  and  eccle- 
siastical writers  inhabiting  Asia  ai^the  eastern  part  of  Europe. 
To  the  latter  class  belong  most  of  the  uncial  MSS.  and  a  few 
later  ones,  most  of  the  versions  (Memphitic,  Latin,  Ethiopic) 
and  fathers  which  belonged  to  Africa  and  the  west  of  Europe. 
The  Constantinopolitan  recension  represents  the  original  text 
diffused  in  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  and  Greece ;  the  Alexandrine 
was  the  result  of  the  carelessness  and  caprice  of  Egyptian 
grammarians  who  vitiated  the  text  during  the  first  three  cen- 
turies, or  did  not  preserve  it  pure.  * 

*  See  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  vol.  i,  capita  i.  and  ix. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  83 

This  system  is  no  more  free  from  objection  than  its  pre- 
decessors. The  ablest  opponent  it  met  with  was  Tischendorf, 
who  undertook  to  examine  the  arguments  of  Scliolz  at  con- 
siderable length,  and  with  much  effect.*  The  great  objection 
to  it  is  the  assumed  fact  of  the  later  Constantinopolitan  MSS. 
having  faithfully  preserved  the  primitive  text  which  circulated 
in  Asia  Minor  and  Syria.  Eusebius  has  related  a  fact  which 
goes  to  prove  that  the  Constantinopolitan  copies  were  not  free 
from  the  influence  of  the  Alexandrine.  At  the  request  of 
Constantine  he  made  out  fifty  copies  of  the  New  Testament 
for  the  use  of  the  churches  at  Constantinople ;  -j-  and  as  we 
know  that  he  gave  a  decided  preference  to  Alexandrine  docu- 
ments, there  is  little  doubt  that  he  followed  such  as  Origen 
had  sanctioned.  Eusebius  therefore  had  not  the  same  opinion 
of  the  Alexandrine  MSS.  as  Scholz.  It  is  true  that  Scholz 
endeavours  to  reply  to  this  fact,  but  in  a  very  unsatisfactory 
method. 
11^  Rinck  divides  all  MSS.  into  two  classes,  occidental  and 
m^iental.  To  the  former  belong  the  uncial  copies  A.  B.  C.  D. 
E.  F.  G.  ]  to  the  latter  almost  all  the  cursive  ones.  To  the 
former  belong  the  African  and  Latin  fathers  and  interpreters. 
This  twofold  variety  already  existed  in  the  fifth  century  and 
was  known  to  the  learned,  so  that  Euthalius  in  the  year  462 
compared  the  Alexandrine  text  with  an  exemplar  written  by 
Pamphilus.  •• 

To  the  former  class  belong  subdivisions  or  families..  Thus 
from  the  western  source  flowed  two  streams,  the  African  in  A. 
B.  C,  with  which  the  Egyptian  fathers  and  interpreters  agree  ; 
and  the  Latin  in  D.  E.  F.  G.,  which  harmonise  with  the  old 
Latin  and  the  Latin  fathers.  Some  MSS.  are  of  a  mixed  cha- 
racter which  flowed  together  from  the  oriental  class  and  the 

*  See  the  Prolegomena  to  his  Leij^zig  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
(1841)  p.  XXX.  et  secj.  t  De  Vita  Constant.  Mag.  iv.  cap.  36. 


84  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

African  family.  Of  this  sort  are  in  the  Acts  and  cathohc 
epistles  15,  18,  25,  36,  40 ;  Moscow  d.  ;  and  in  the  Pauline 
epistles  17,  31,  37,  39,  46,  47,  67.  According  to  this  critic 
tlie  western  class  is  for  the  most  part  the  fruit  of  arbitrary  cor- 
rection and  licentiousness.  Into  the  oriental  class,  on  the 
other  hand,  errors  mostly  crept  through  ignorance.* 

Tischendorf's  view,  as  proposed  in  the  first  edition  of  his 
Greek  Testament  published  in  1841,  was  very  like  Rinck's.  In 
the  second  edition  it  also  approaches  very  near  to  the  same 
critic's.  We  shall  state  his  latest  sentiments,  as  contained  in 
the  new  edition.  He  specifies  four  classes,  Alexandrine  and 
Latin,  Asiatic  and  Byzantine,  wishing  them  however  to  be 
taken  in  pairs,  not  singly.  There  are  then  two  pairs  of 
classes.  The  Alexandrine  was  that  which  prevailed  among 
the  Jewish  christians  of  the  east,  whose  Greek  diction  de- 
pended chiefly  on  the  Septuagint.  The  Latin  was  among  the 
Latins,  whether  they  employed  the  Latin  or  Greek  language. 
The  Asiatic  prevailed  chiefly  among  the  Greeks,  whethd^p 
throughout  Asia  or  in  their  own  country.  The  Byzantine 
was  spread  through  the  Byzantine  church,  and  gradually 
brought  into  a  certain  uniform  state.  Hence  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  it  happened  that  Byzantine  copies  received  the  Asiatic 
method  or  that  of  the  Greeks.  The  Alexandrine  and  the 
Latin  were  also  conjoined  in  some  degree.  The  Alexandrine 
documents  are  placed  by  him  in  the  first  rank  as  being  the 
most  ancient,  while  the  Byzantine  are  placed  lowest,  as  they 
present  a  text  made  up  by  multifarious  admixture  from  more 
ancient  classes. 

But  while  learned  men  were  concocting  recensions,  others 
rejected  them  all  as  untenable,  improbable,  and  useless.  This 
was  the  case  with  Matthaei,  who  unceremoniously  cast  aside 

*  Lucubratio  Critica  in  Acta  Apostolorum,  epistolas    catholicas  et 
Paulinas,  p.  2,  et  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  85 

the  idea  which  prompted  Griesbach  and  others  to  classify 
their  materials  of  criticism,*  Professor  Lee  in  like  manner 
uses  strong  language  of  similar  import,  f  Nor  are  Mr.  Penn's 
words  less  dogmatical  and  decided.  "  The  diversities,"  says 
he,  "  resulting  from  all  these  causes  gradually  but  continually 
multiplying  through  several  ages  of  transcription,  in  different 
and  distant  countries,  produced  at  length  texts  characteristically 
differing  from  each  other,  and  from  the.  most  ancient  surviving 
text ;  and  the  innate  propensity  of  the  mind  to  clear  its  notions 
by  endeavouring  to  reduce  its  confused  ideas  to  systematical 
arrangement,  prompted  some  late  learned  critics  to  persuade 
themselves  that  they  had  discovered  in  the  chaos  of  various 
readings  certain  fixed  marks  or  tokens  by  which  they  could 
be  reduced  into  ti'ue  classes  or  07'ders.1^ 

With  the  language  of  these  scholars  we  do  not  wholly 
sympathise.  We  are  not  yet  prepared  to  set  aside  the  whole 
matter  as  an  ingenious  riddle.  Though  several  attempts  to 
erect  recension-systems  have  not  been  satisfactory,  we  need 
not  therefore  look  upon  all  such  endeavours  as  airy  and  un- 
substantial, or  as  terminating  merely  in  fine-spun  theories  and 
webs  of  gossamer.  Intricacy  and  obscurity  must  rest  on  the 
subject.  It  may  be  difficult  to  disentangle  classes  of  docu- 
ments from  one  another.  Averse  to  subtility  and  minuteness, 
some  scholars  will  make  this  their  natural  aversion  an  easy 
transition  to  the  sentiment  that  the  whole  is  futile.  But  in  an 
undertaking  so  important  as  the  establishment  of  a  pure  text, 
it  facilitates  the  labour  of  a  critic  to  classify  MSS.,  versions, 
and  citations,  so  that  he  may  be  helped  in  deciding  on  the 

*  Ueber  die  sogenannten  Recensionem  welche  cler  Herr  Abt.  Bengel, 
der  Herr  Doctor  Semler  und  der  Herr  Geheime  Kirclienrath  Griesbach 
in  dem  griechischen  Textc  dcs  N.  Testaments  wollen  entdeckt  haben, 
1804. 

t  Prolegomena  in  Biblia  Polyglotta  Londinensia  Minora,  p.  69. 

I  Annotations  to  the  book  of  the  New  Covenant,  Preface,  p.  37. 


86  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

claims  of  a  particular  reading.  In  the  formation  of  a  standard 
text  it  may  be  of  some  use  to  lay  such  a  foundation.  Hence 
we  do  not  feel  ourselves  justified  in  rejecting  at  once  the  whole 
system  of  classification  as  visionary.  With  all  the  conjectures 
which  have  been  indulged  in,  and  the  intricacies  of  the  sub- 
ject, it  must  not  be  rudely  dismissed.  It  may  be  that  histori- 
cal facts  are  scarcely  sufficient  to  furnish  data  for  any  system 
of  recensions  properly  so  called.  It  may  be  that  conjectures 
have  been  put  forth  too  liberally  regarding  revisions  of  the 
text  in  early  times,  and  the  nature  of  the  text  itself.  It  may 
be  that  the  speculations  of  German  critics  have  taken  too  wide 
a  scope,  agreeably  to  the  natural  tendency  of  the  nation's 
mind.  It  is  quite  true  that  there  is  a  vagueness  and  an  inde- 
finiteness  about  the  topic  which  excite  rather  than  gratify  a 
curiosity  to  know  it  thoroughly.  We  admit  that  it  is  difiicult 
for  the  framers  of  the  recension-system  itself  to  distinguish  the 
class  to  which  a  particular  reading  belongs.  The  characteris- 
tics of  the  text  belonging  to  a  document  may  be  almost  equally 
divided  between  two  classes.  Or,  they  may  be  indistinctly 
indicated,  so  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  discover  the  recension 
with  which  it  should  be  associated.  The  marks  of  its  rela- 
tionship may  be  defined  so  obscurely  as  to  make  the  question 
of  determining  its  appropriate  class  a  delicate  one.  It  is  also 
freely  admitted  that  no  one  document  exhibits  a  recension  in 
its  pure  or  primitive  state ;  but  that  each  form  of  the  text  is 
now  more  or  less  corrupted.  Still  however,  with  all  these 
drawbacks,  the  whole  system  of  classification  need  not  be 
abandoned  as  visionary.  Meagre  as  are  the  means  within 
our  reach  of  obtaining  a  good  acquaintance  with  the  early 
treatment  of  the  New  Testament  text,  we  need  not  despair  of 
all  success.  No  system  may  be  historically  sustained,  because 
history  says  little  or  nothing  on  tlie  subject ;  and  yet  some  sys- 
tem may  be  convenient.  We  may  arrive  at  a  well  founded 
classification,  without  the  ability  to  shew  from   early  history 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT.  87 

its  probable  origin  and  existence.  As  long  as  the  existence 
of  certain  characteristic  readings  belonging  to  various  memo- 
rials of  the  text  can  be  perceived,  we  will  not  abandon  the 
idea  of  recensions  or  families.  And  we  believe  that  classes 
in  the  whole  mass  of  materials  may  be  distinguished  from  one 
another.  Their  number  here  is  of  no  moment ;  their  existence 
is  all  we  claim ;  and  few  critics  will  hesitate  to  admit  the 
latter  as  a  fact,  believing  that  the  critical  documents  of  the 
New  Testament  text  separate  themselves  by  means  of  charac- 
teristic readings  into  certain  classes. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


OBSERVATIONS  ON  MODES  OF  CLASSIFYING  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT  DOCUMENTS,  AND  THEIR 
CRITICAL  APPLICATION. 

Theke  are  two  points  wliicli  deserve  attention. 

First,  the  hind  of  classification  that  appears  to  be  the 
simplest,  and  best  sustained  by  all  the  phenomena ;  secondly, 
the  critical  use  to  be  made  of  the  classification  adopted. 

1.  We  cannot  see  that  the  Alexandrine  and  the  occidental 
classes  are  different.  The  line  of  distinction  drawn  between 
the  MSS.  said  to  belong  to  them  is  neither  wide  nor  palpable. 
The  quotations  of  the  Alexandrine  fathers  Clement  and  Ori- 
gen  did  not  differ  much  from  those  of  the  western  fathers 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian.  On  the  contrary,  they  agreed  with 
the  latter  more  nearly  than  with  those  of  the  later  Alexandrine 
fathers  Athanasius  and  Cyril.  Of  226  readings  of  Origen  in 
Paul's  epistles  coinciding  with  western  or  Alexandrine  autho- 
rity, or  with  both,  118  are  supported  by  western  authority 
alone,  90  by  western  and  Alexandrine  united,  and  only  18  by 
Alexandrine  alone.  Again,  Griesbach  enumerates  75  joint 
readings  of  A.  and  C.  common  to  Origen,  but  Laurence  only 
finds  72.  But  of  these  72  there  are  not  more  than  seven  which 
do  not  coincide  with  the  Latin  version  or  some  western  MS.  as 
with  A.  C.  and  Origen.  The  65  coinciding  with  the  western 
text  are  generally  in  alliance  with  several  versions,  fathers,  or 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    DOCUMENTS.  89 

MSS.,  while  the  seven  exceptions  which  do  not  coincide  with 
the  same  text  are  little  more  than  isolated  readings.  In  the 
first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  there  is  an  agreement  of  all  or 
some  documents  of  the  Alexandrine  and  western  recensions  in 
194  passages,  where  there  is  a  departure  from  the  oriental  or 
Byzantine.  It  is  also  against  the  existence  of  an  occidental 
as  separate  from  an  Alexandrine  class  that  the  Sahidic  ver- 
sion belongs  to  the  former,  not  to  the  latter.  How  can  such 
fact  be  explained  on  the  supj)osition  that  there  was  a  real  line 
between  the  two  ?  For  these  and  other  reasons  the  existence 
of  a  western  class  appears  problematical.  In  truth  the  Alex- 
andrine alone  sliould  be  held,  for  the  occidental  is  not  far  from 
being  identical  with  it.  Eichhorn  is  right  in  sajing  that  the 
dream  of  a  twofold  recension,  an  Alexandrine  and  an  occidental, 
has  no  foundation  in  history. 

In  contradistinction  to  the  Alexandrine  class  of  MSS.  is 
the  Constantinopolitan,  characterised  by  great  uniformity.  On 
the  other  hand  the  Alexandrine  exhibits  very  considerable 
diversities.  Whatever  be  the  cause  or  causes,  the  readings  of 
the  one  class  are  characteristically  different  from  those  of  the 
other.  Let  us  first  speak  of  the  name  assigned  to  documents 
bearing  resemblances  to  one  another,  whether  MSS.,  versions, 
or  quotations. 

We  object  to  the  name  recension  as  liable  to  convey  an 
erroneous  impression.  According  to  Griesbach's  notion,  it 
was  properly  applied  by  him  to  his  Alexandrine  class,  but 
impro'perly  to  his  two  other  classes.  According  to  Hug,  it 
was  properly  applied  to  the  three  forms  of  the  text  which 
arose  after  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  But  it  can 
neither  be  proved  nor  rendered  probable  that  the  diversities 
existing  between  what  have  been  called  recensions  were 
attributable  each  to  one  leading  person,  or  that  they  resulted 
from  a  formal  revision  and  correction  of  the  text.  There  was 
no  general  revision  of  the  text  at  any  time  by  any  person,  in 


90  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

any  country.  Nor  did  such  a  thing  proceed  from  a  numher  of 
'persons  acting  in  concert  for  the  one  object.  We  must  dismiss 
the  idea  of  Origen,  Hesychius,  Lucian,  the  grammarians  of 
Alexandria,  Eusebius,  Euthalius,  being  each  or  all  the  authors 
of  extensive  recensions.  The  different  forms  of  the  text  to 
which  the  objectionable  name  has  been  given  were  more  the 
result  of  chance  than  design.  They  were  formed  gradually 
and  in  a  great  measure  imperceptibly.  Out  of  the  confluence 
of  single  corrections,  scholia,  glosses,  mistakes,  arose  such  con- 
formations of  the  text.  Thus,  studied  purpose  and  intention 
contributed  but  little  to  their  production.  No  doubt  indivi- 
dual coiTCctors  helped  occasionally  to  bring  them  about. 
There  were  persons  now  and  then  who  were  imbued  with 
some  critical  taste  who  probably  revised  one  or  more  copies. 
But  this  was  only  one  influence  among  many,  and  by  itself 
would  have  been  both  insignificant  and  imperceptible.  All 
tlie  copies  in  different  lands  which  have  been  distributed  into 
recensions  were  as  a  whole  unrevised.  No  one  recension  had 
been  corrected.  A  number  of  documents  came  by  degrees 
through  fortuitous  circumstances  to  present  more  or  fewer 
cognate  readings.  The  influences  to  which  they  had  been 
exposed  were  various.  Country,  national  habits,  intercourse 
with  other  peoples,  general  culture,  reputation  of  particular 
churches,  monasteries,  schools,  biblical  students,  these  and 
innumerable  other  things  all  conspired  to  the  production  of  a 
certain  form  of  text  in  a  certain  country,  or  in  a  certain  wide 
territory  more  or  less  closely  associated. 

In  thus  asserting  that  all  the  documents  are  properly 
unrevised,  we  do  not  forget  that  single  passages  in  several  of 
them  were  revised,  and  that  a  few  of  a  mixed  character 
bearing  the  same  impress  may  be  distinguished.  If  liow- 
ever  any  recension  be  selected  and  looked  at  as  a  whole,  it 
will  be  found  to  consist  of  unrevised,  uncorrected  documents. 
It  has  not  the  marks  of  design   througliovt  it.     The  nature  of 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    DOCUMENTS.  91 

the  single  copies  of  which  it  consists  shews  that  it  arose  out 
of  a   great   number   of    fortuitous    concurrent    circumstances. 
Neither  do  Ave  forget  the  opinion  of  Hug  that  D.  E.  F.  G. 
represent  the  old  unrevised  text,  the  xoivri  sxdosig ;  while  tlie 
text  of  A.  B.  C.  is  purer,  and  evidently  revised.     Such  distinc- 
tion, however,  between  the  two  classes  of  uncial  MSS.  is  futile. 
The  reasons  given  for  it  are  nugatory.     Clement   of  Alex- 
andria, who  according  to   Hug  belonged  to   the  -/.onri  ixdoan 
period,  agrees  with  some  notable  readings  in  D.  E.  F.  G. 
Hence  D.  E.  F.  G.  must  be  exempted  from  revisal,  while  the 
Alexandrine  A.  B.  C.  have  a  purified  text.     But  Clement  of 
Alexandria  agrees  as  much  at  least,  if  not  more,  with  A.  B.  C. 
as  with  D.  E.  F.  G.      Besides,  the  -/.oiv^  'ixhosig  is  not  uni- 
formly   corrupt.       Sometimes   it  is   more  than  the   text   of 
A.  B.  C,  sometimes  less  so.     Single  documents  of  it  are  more 
degenerate,  others  less.      Besides  there  are  various  passages 
where  D.  E.  F.  G.  have  the  true  reading  and  A.  B.  C.  not. 
In  some  places  too,  A.  B.  C.  have  mistakes  which  did  not 
originate  with  them  but  were  derived  from  some  other  source, 
while  D.  E.  F.  G.  contain  primary  errors.      In  fact,  there  is 
no  good  reason  for  exempting  D.  E.  F.  G.  from  the  influence 
of  the  early  critics  any  more  than  A.  B.  C.     They  may  have 
come  under  the  hands  of  less  intelligent,  skilful,  adventurous 
critics  than  the  latter.     The  degree  of  revision  they  underwent 
was  less.     But  that  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  repre- 
sentation given  by  Hug,  which  proceeds  on  a  wrong  assump- 
tion.    We  cannot  believe  that  the  edition  of  D.  is  the  basis 
of  the  edition  in  B.  C.  L.     It  cannot  be  shewn  that  it  is  so. 
On  the  contrary,  sometimes  that  of  the  one,  sometimes  that  of 
the  other  is  the  later  transmitted  form.     And  if  D.  presented 
the  most  ancient  state  of  the  text,  it  would  present  the  truer 
state,  which  it  does  not.     Wherever  there  is  an  abundance  of 
good  readings,  therp,  is  the  more  ancient  text.     But  D.  is  much 
more  interpolated  than  B.  C.  L. 


92  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

If  these  observations  be  correct,  the  memorials  of  the  New 
Testament  text  should  be  distributed  into  classes,  not  recen- 
sions. 

But  here  arise  a  number  of  perplexing  circumstances 
which  throw  a  degree  of  vagueness  over  the  subject  of  classi- 
fication. The  metes  and  bounds  of  even  two  classes  are  not 
well  defined.  No  MS.,  no  version,  no  father  whether  Greek 
or  Latin,  presents  that  condition  of  the  text  which  is  called 
a  class,  accurately  and  constantly.  All  the  documents,  even 
the  most  ancient  ones,  present  some  marks  of  another  class 
than  that  to  which  they  belong.  This  is  admitted  and  pointed 
out  by  Griesbach  himself,  especially  in  B.  and  A. 

Again,  the  question  comes  up  how  many  and  what  kind 
of  individual  readings  are  required  to  constitute  a  class.  It  is 
admitted  that  all  the  documents  of  each  class  are  more  or  less 
impure  and  mixed  together  in  their  readings :  of  how  many 
then  is  the  class  to  consist,  and  what  is  the  test  for  including 
an  individual  document  in  a  class  ?  There  is  no  doubt  that 
country  has  been  made  an  important  particular  in  separating 
classes  ;  but  country  itself  may  be  overbalanced  by  other  cir- 
cumstances, and  is  in  every  case  modified  by  a  variety  of 
influences. 

Another  question  which  perplexes  the  critic  is,  in  what  does 
the  genius  of  each  class  adopted  consist  ?  What  are  the  respective 
natures  of  two  classes,  if  that  number  be  fixed  on  ? 

It  is  also  true  that  a  great  number  of  the  various  readings 
that  have  been  collected  have  had  their  origin  in  accidental 
circumstances.  They  are  trifling  mistakes,  consisting  in  negli- 
gences, or  imperfections  of  sight  and  hearing,  slips  of  the  pen, 
omissions,  changes,  transpositions  of  letters,  syllables,  words, 
and  cognate  clauses.  Of  what  avail,  it  may  be  asked,  are  such 
trifling  things  in  determining  distinct  classes  ?  Are  they  not 
fortuitous  variations ;  and  how  can  such  avail  to  the  ascertain- 
ment of  a  class  ? 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    DOCUMENTS.  93 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  such  various  readings  as  originated  in 
design  be  taken  in  order  to  shtipe  out  a  class  of  documents,  it 
is  by  no  means  easj  to  distribute  the  immense  multitude  of 
readings  according  to  their  origin  in  intention  and  in  accident. 
Many  that  owed  their  existence  to  design  were  propagated 
unintentioncdly.  Thus  a  gloss  was  put  at  first  into  the  margin 
of  a  copy.  But  a  transcriber,  through  mere  mistake,  after- 
wards put  it  into  the  text. 

The  circumstances  now  stated  are  embai-rassing  to  the 
critic.  They  shew  how  many  considerations  should  be  taken 
into  account  in  any  attempt  to  distribute  the  New  Testament 
documents  into  classes,  and  favour  the  idea  of  adopting  the 
simplest  division  possible.  We  believe  that  they  recommend 
a  division  of  all  the  critical  materials  into  two  classes  as  the 
freest  from  difficulty  and  the  most  easily  apprehended. 

The  proposed  plan  does  not  aim  at  niceness  of  distinction, 
neither  does  it  demand  a  power  of  minute  discrimination.  It 
draws  a  tolerably  plain  line,  which  is  all  the  better,  as  the 
subject  is  inexact  by  its  very  nature,  and  abhorrent  of  palpable 
presentation.  It  cannot  be  so  bounded  and  fixed  as  to  preclude 
considerable  latitude.  After  all,  something  depends  on  the 
subjective  notions  of  the  critic  respecting  the  proper  extent  of  a 
class  whether  the  number  should  be  limited  to  two,  or  whether 
it  ought  to  be  increased.  Some  may  put  as  a  sub-class  or 
family  what  others  would  not  hesitate  to  exalt  into  a  proper 
class.  There  may  be  advantages  in  enlarging  the  number  of 
classes  as  far  as  probability  will  warrant.  Griesbach  himself 
admits  the  propriety  of  an  extended  division ;  for  he  supposes 
the  existence  of  Jive  or  six  classes,  in  his  Gurae  in  epistolas 
Paulinas.*  But  the  advantages  arising  fi'om  an  increase  of 
classes,  are  counterbalanced  by  serious  inconveniences.  Utility 
in  'practical  application  is  on  the  side  of  as  few  as  possible. 
And  as  the  critical  system  to  which  a  classification  leads  depends 
*  Opuscula  Academica,  vol.  ii.  p.  49. 


94  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

on  the  classification  itself,  the  simpler  must  be  preferred.  A 
complex  classification  will  not  readily  admit  of  a  simple  ap- 
plication. 

Assuming  then  the  existence  of  two  classes,  an  eastern  and 
western,  how  shall  each  be  characterised  ?  To  what  kind  of 
errors  does  each  incline  ?  In  the  eastern  the  mistakes  of  the 
text  arose  for  the  most  part  from  ignorance  and  such  oversights 
as  are  usual  and  indeed  unavoidable  in  propagating  documents 
by  copies  from  one  generation  to  another.  The  mistakes 
necessarily  multiply  with  the  multiplication  of  copies,  so  that 
the  latest  written  documents  contain  the  most  blunders.  But 
in  the  western,  the  variations  seem  to  be  the  result  of  caprice 
and  a  taste  for  correcting.  The  transcribers  of  the  former  class 
were  less  intelligent  than  those  of  tlie  latter.  The  occidental 
copyists  and  possessors  of  MSS.  were  not  scrupulous  about 
their  treatment  of  the  text.  They  handled  it  freely.  They 
added,  omitted,  introduced  glosses,  changed  synonymous  ex- 
pressions, transposed  others.  On  the  other  hand,  the  oriental 
copyists  and  possessors  of  MSS.  made  mistakes  from  imperfect 
sight,  from  o/j.oiori'ksvTovj  from  abbreviations,  from  being  misled 
by  glosses  or  scholia.  In  their  case  there  was  more  negligence ; 
in  the  case  of  the  others  more  license  and  caprice. 

These  remarks  will  perhaps  account  in  part  for  the  fact, 
that  the  one  class  is  characterised  by  considerable  diversities  of 
text,  the  other  by  much  more  uniformity.  There  was  no 
general  revision  in  either  case ;  but  in  the  occidental  class 
there  was  more  individual  revising,  if  so  it  can  be  termed,  than 
in  the  oriental.  But  as  these  individuals  were  guided  by  no 
principle,  and  corrected  according  to  no  uniform  method,  as 
they  had  little  reverence  for  the  mere  words  of  the  text,  they 
proceeded  very  much  subjectively/.  They  were  presumptuous 
rather  than  careless  transcribers.  This  was  especially  the  case 
at  Alexandria,  where  grammarians  and  learned  men  abounded. 

To  the  western  class  belong  the  MSS.  B.  D,  L.  in  the 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    DOCUMENTS.  95 

gospels ;  in  the  epistles  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  the  Alexandrine, 
Carthaginian  and  Latin  fathers  and  interpreters. 

To  the  eastern  belong  the  cursive  MSS.  generally,  with 
the  fathers  and  versions  belonging  to  the  east. 

Certain  documents  are  of  a  mixed  character,  such  as  A.  C. 
K.  M.  in  the  gospels.  The  Peshito  Syriac,  if  what  is  said  of  it 
by  Hug  and  Griesbach  be  correct,  cannot  well  belong  to  either 
class.  The  same  applies  to  the  Jerusalem  Syriac,  whose  text 
is  both  ancient  and  valuable. 

This  twofold  variety  of  documents  may  be  exemplified 
thus : — 

In  1  Corinth,  iii.  4  we  have  both  readings,  ovx  avd^uxol  sots 
and  ojx  or  bvyj  ca^xtzoi  iCTi.  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  as  also 
17,  67,  a  secunda  manu,  71,  and  Joh.  Damascenus,  Origen, 
Augustine,  Ambrosiaster,  Pelagius,  the  Memphitic,  ^thiopic, 
Vetus,  Vulgate,  read  av&owxoi.  In  this  the  common  origin 
of  those  uncial  MSS.  is  seen,  for  the  copy  whence  they  were 
derived,  doubtless  through  intermediate  transcripts,  had  the 
scholium  civd^oj-Trot  above  ga^Kr/.oi,  which  gave  rise  to  the  tak- 
ing of  avd^ojToi  instead  of  <ra^-/.r/.oi  into  the  text.  The  same 
uncial  MSS.  agree  in  omitting  with  a  very  few  cursive  ones 
the  words  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  xiv.  6  from  xa!  6  /j,n 

^^ovSjv (pgovu.       This  is    an   example  of  o/MoioriXrorov. 

They  also  agree  in  omitting  eXsvgo^ai  'j^hg  b/jjag  in  epistle  to 
Homans  xv.  24,  and  in  the  omission  of  rov  iuayyiXio-j  rou  in 
Eomans  xv.  29.  In  1  Corinth,  x.  1,  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G. 
have  yds,  whereas  the  oriental  class  of  MSS.  with  the  Peshito 
have  ds,  which  the  context  appears  to  require.  In  1  Corinth. 
xi.  11,  the  uncial  MSS.  generally  have  o'Jn  ywn  x.'^fig  dvdphg, 
ours  dvrjp  x^pig  yuvaixog.  But  the  oriental  class  with  the  Peshito 
and  Vulgate  read  tXtiv  own  d\/rip  yoiph  yuvaizhg,  ovrs  yjvrj  yoiph  dvhpog. 

From  these  and  many  other  like  examples  we  may  fairly 
assume  a  relationship  between  these  leading  uncial  MSS.  A. 
B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G. 


'96  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

Again,  all  the  cursive  MSS.  Avitli  a  very  few  exceptions, 
read  '  Kyjxiac,  in  place  of  'Atf/aj,  Romans  xvi.  5.  They  also  put 
Romans  xvi.  25-27  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  chapter.  In 
like  manner,  the  same  documents,  with  five  exceptions  which 
harmonise  with  the  uncials,  add  the  words  %ai  h  tiZ  'jvz-oiMan 
hlMuv,  cirtva  Igi  tou  kou  to  1  Corinth.  vi.  20,  wliich  were  at  first  a 
marginal  gloss.  So  too  with  a  few  exceptions  they  have 
h(bii\oixivnv  svvoiav  (a  gloss)  in  place  of  ops/Xj^c,  1  Corinth,  vii.  3 ; 
gyjAd^riTs  for  syoXdff^ri,  1  Corinth.  vii.  5 ;  where  they  also  add 
rfi  vyjgiia  jccc',  and  admit  the  gloss  <ruvs^^ssk  for  ^n. 

This  twofold  variety  of  copies  already  existed  and  was 
recognised  in  the  fifth  century,  for  Euthalius  (a.d.  462)  com- 
pared the  Alexandrine  text  with  a  MS.  copy  of  Pamphilus  at 
Caesarea,  as  he  himself  states.  This  is  corroborated  by  the 
fact  that  46  (Pauline  ep.)  of  Griesbach,  and  109  Acts  and 
epistles,  which  are  transcripts  of  the  Euthalian  copy,  occupy 
an  intermediate  place  between  the  occidental  and  oriental 
classes,  agreeing  sometimes  with  the  uncial,  at  other  times  with 
the  cursive  MSS. 

The  origin  of  the  two  classes  cannot  be  historically  traced 
to  single  persons  or  places,  or  to  definite  times,  else  there  would 
not  have  been  a  total  silence  in  antiquity  respecting  such  par- 
ticulars.    They  arose  and  were  formed  gradual!?/. 

If  these  observations  be  just,  they  will  serve  to  shew  the 
vain  endeavours  of  the  followers  of  Hug  to  prove  that  about 
the  commencement  of  the  fourth  century  three  forms  of  a  re- 
vised text  came  into  general  use — one  in  the  churches  of  Egypt, 
called  the  Egyptian  or  Alexandrine ;  another  in  Greece,  Thrace, 
Asia,  Syria ;  and  another  extending  as  far  as  the  four  gospels 
only.  The  attempted  proof  miserably  fails.  That  there  were 
three  recensions  of  the  text  at  this  time,  is  an  assumption  rest- 
ing on  no  good  foundation.  Hug's  forms  of  the  -/.oivri  izdosi; 
in  different  countries,  and  then  the  revised  forms  of  it  in  the 
same  and  perhaps  other  districts,  are  for  the  most  part  imagi- 


CLASSIFICATION   OF   DOCUMENTS.  9< 

nary.  Even  Jerome  has  been  pressed  into  the  service  of  a 
tlieory  like  Hug's.  Because  he  writes  that  in  preparing  a 
revised  edition  of  the  Latin  version,  "  this  present  preface 
promises  only  the  four  gospels  of  wliich  the  order  is,  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  John,  amended  from  the  collation  of  Greek  copies 
but  ancient  ones  j  and  lest  the  gospels  should  differ  much 
from  the  usage  of  the  Latin  text,  I  have  used  tlie  pen  with 
restraint,  so  that  while  correcting  the  things  only  which  ap- 
peared to  alter  the  sense,  I  allowed  others  to  remain  as  they 
had  been."^  It  will  surprise  the  reader  to  learn  the  fact  of 
whicli  this  is  said  to  be  a  proofs  viz.  that  a  revision  or  recension 
of  the  original  had  been  introduced,  supposed  to  be  more  criti- 
cally correct,  and  which  had  on  that  account  superseded  the 
old  uncritical  copies  formerly  in  circulation.  But  how  is  this 
strange  conclusion  deduced  ?  In  the  strangest  possible  way. 
Jerome  went  back  for  ancient  MSS.  to  amend  the  text  of  the 
Latin,  not  because  they  were  better  than  the  more  recent  ones, 
hut  because  they  were  worse.  The  recent  ones  being  more  cor- 
rect because  they  liad  been  revised,  were  not  easily  adapted  to 
his  purpose.  The  Latin  translation  could  not  be  readily  ac- 
commodated to  tlie  better  MSS.  then  in  circulation.  He 
resorted  to  the  old  unrevised  copies  which  had  been  laid  aside 
because  they  differed  less  from  the  Latin  version  than  the 
critically  revised  ones.  Surely  this  is  most  perverse  and 
strange  reasouiiig.  Jerome  must  have  been  very  silly  to  write 
to  Damasus,  if  this  were  his  meaning,  and  innocently  declare 
what  he  had  done.  Doubtless  he  went  back  to  the  ancient 
codices,  because  he  thought  their  text  better.     Besides,  he  says 

*  ''  Igitur  haec  praesens  praefatiuncula  pollicetur  quatuor  evangelia  ; 
codicum  graecorum  emeiulata  collatione,  seel  veterum,  quae  ne  multum  a 
lectionis  Latinae  consuetudine  discreparent,  ita  calamo  temperavimixs,  ut 
his  tantum,  quae  sensum  videbantur  mutare  correctis,  reliqua  manere 
pateremur,  utfuerant." — Praefat  in  Eraug.  ad  Damasum. 
A'OL.  IT.  11 


98  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

that  he  sometimes  consulted  the  codices  of  Oriyen^  manifestly 
because  they  were  good. 

Neither  can  any  induction  founded  on  the  phenomena  of 
the  oldest  existing  MSS.  prove  that  about  this  time  three 
forms  of  revised  text  had  come  into  general  use  among  Chris- 
tians. Let  any  one  examine  the  documents  of  the  fifth  century, 
compare  previously  made  versions  with  them,  trace  their  influ- 
ence as  far  as  it  can  be  discerned  in  transcripts,  and  it  is 
impossible  for  him  to  make  out  such  recensions  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  those  who  know  what  the  term  means,  or  ouglit  to 
mean  if  rightly  used.  Here  Hug  has  indulged  his  imagination 
to  a  large  extent ;  nor  has  Griesbach,  in  various  concessions 
which  he  made  in  his  old  age  to  the  new  theory  of  Hug,  per- 
ceived the  untenable  propositions  which  the  ingenuity  of  his 
younger  fellow-labourer  had  set  forth  in  a  plausible  dress. 

We  have  seen  that  two  classes  existed  in  the  time  of 
Euthalius,  and  were  recognised  at  that  time  by  the  learned. 
Neither  two^  nor  three^  nor  four  recensions  were  current.  The 
classes  did  not  originate  by  means  of  critical  revisions  conducted 
on  certain  principles.  There  had  always  been  scribes  and 
correctors  of  the  text  wherever  copies  circulated  ;  but  what  they 
did  was  so  inconsiderable  as  to  leave  the  general  mass  of 
codices  much  as  they  were  before,  till  the  multiplication  of 
transcripts  and  the  various  treatment  to  which  the  text  was 
exposed,  with  the  increasing  number  of  critics,  led  by  degrees 
to  the  appearance  of  certain  general  features  among  the  docu- 
ments. Such  scribes  and  correctors  existed  in  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth  centuries,  in  varying  numbers  and  with 
various  habits  in  different  countries.  During  these  early  times 
it  is  thought  that  they  took  very  considerable  liberties  with 
the  text,  especially  at  Alexandria.  Griesbach  thinks  that  the 
licentiousness  of  transcribers  in  regard  to  the  text  ceased  very 
much  from  the  fifth  century  among  the  Greeks,  and  among 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    DOCUMENTS.  99 

the  Latins  somewhat  later.  Doctrinal  controversies  had  arisen, 
many  commentaries  on  Scripture  had  been  written,  the  Catholic 
fathers  insisted  more  on  the  words  of  the  text  when  they 
wished  to  confound  heretics  or  to  instruct  their  disciples  in  the 
faith.  Besides,  the  churches  came  to  be  more  closely  united, 
and  to  have  frequent  intercourse  with  each  other.  They 
communicated  copies  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  to  one  another, 
and  adopted  a  fixed  edition  of  the  text  from  which  they  did 
not  venture  to  depart.  And  the  monks  especially  were  most 
diligent  in  transcribing  the  sacred  books  with  exemplary 
accuracy  and  patience.  Their  very  superstition  kept  them 
from  meddling  freely  with  the  text. 

But  though  the  occidental  and  Alexandrine  of  Griesbach 
constitute  but  one  class,  yet  this  may  admit  of  subdivision. 
There  are  two  subdivisions  or  families  in  it,  viz.  the  African 
and  the  Latin.  To  the  former  belong  B.  L.  in  the  gospels  ; 
to  the  latter  D.  with  the  Egyptian  fathers  and  interpreters  ,•  in 
the  Acts  and  epistles  A.  B.  C.  belong  to  the  African ;  D.  E. 
F.  G.  to  the  Latin. 

Agreeably  to  this  classification  and  subdivision,  Binck 
found  that  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  John's  gospel  B.  D.  L.  (or 
B,  D.  or  D.  L.)  differed  from  the  mass  of  MSS.  in  thirty- 
three  cases,  having  the  African  and  Latin  interpreters  consent- 
ing ;  while  B.  L.  without  D.  agreed  in  nine  places  against  the 
oriental  class.  Thus  B.  L.  had  more  agreement  with  D. 
against  the  oriental  class,  than  disagreement  with  D.  and  the 
oriental  class.  When  the  African  and  Latin  families  vary, 
the  former  evinces  an  inclination  for  greater  elegance  of  style 
and  for  avoiding  Hebraisms,  agreeably  to  Griesbach's  senten- 
tious statement,  "  grammaticuin  egit  Alexandrinus  censor,  inter- 
pretem  occidentalis,"  i.e.  the  Latin  family. 

2.  The  critical  use  to  be  made  of  classification. 

The  use  which  Griesbach  made  of  his  recensions  is  well 
known.     He  laid  down  certain  rules  respecting  them.     But  lie 


100  .  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

did  not  consistently  apply  them.  He  departed  less  from  the 
received  text  than  he  should  have  done  by  his  own  critical 
system.  In  not  a  few  cases,  notwithstanding  his  own  prin- 
ciples, and  in  opposition  to  them,  he  allowed  the  internal  good- 
ness of  a  reading  a  superior  influence.  Hence  his  text  exhibits 
better  readings  than  his  recension  system  would  have  properly 
recommended.  But  yet  he  gave  too  much  scope  to  his  system 
of  recensions  in  the  determination  of  his  text.  It  became  too 
mechanical.  And  in  the  hands  of  some  of  his  admirers  it 
assumed  this  character  to  a  very  injurious  extent.  Griesbach's 
ingenuity  and  critical  tact  prevented  him  from  a  mechanical 
mode  of  procedure,  which  others  possessed  of  less  subjective 
ability  incautiously  adopted.  On  the  whole,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  Griesbach's  recension-system  led  him  easily,  naturally, 
and  consistently  to  the  determination  of  a  right  text.  Pro- 
bably it  could  not  be  consistently  and  successfully  applied  to 
any  great  extent.  The  differences  between  the  text  of  the 
second  edition  and  the  text  of  the  minor  Leipzig  edition  con- 
firm the  truth  of  this  remark. 

If  again  we  look  at  Scholz's  application  of  his  classifica- 
tion, the  same  observations  will  hold  good.  He  has  not 
consistently  and  uniformly  adhered  to  his  own  principles.  lie 
has  frequently  departed  from  them,  especially  in  the  second 
volume,  and  that  too  for  the  better. 

We  believe  that  no  mode  of  classification  can  be  of  much 
utility  to  the  critic  in  ascertaining  the  right  reading.  Here 
the  entire  theory  is  worthless  to  a  considerable  extent.  So 
many  conditions  and  limitations  must  be  taken  along  with  any 
classification  however  good,  that  the  influence  of  itself  ceases 
to  be  much  recognised. 

As  to  the  western  and  eastern  classes,  opinions  have  differed 
respecting  their  comparative  value.  According  to  some  the 
authority  of  the  junior  MSS.  decidedly  preponderates  over  the 
older  ones,  or  in  other  words  the  Constantinopolitan  over  the 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    DOCUMENTS.  101 

Alexandrine.  There  are  others  again  who  greatly  prefer  the 
Alexandrine,  giving  them  a  decided  weight  above  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan.  To  the  former  party  belongs  Matthaci,  who 
abused  the  Alexandrine  MSS.  and  their  admirers.  Their 
peculiar  readings  were  "  Origen's  spittle  "  which  those  who 
pleased  might  lick.  They  were  "  dunghill  MSS.,"  through 
the  fumes  of  wliich  poor  Griesbach  had  lost  the  use  of  his  eyes. 
Such  language  disgraced  the  person  who  stooped  to  its  use. 

Anotlier  advocate  of  the  Constantinopolitan  text  was  Nolan, 
who  vindicated  it  however,  because  he  thought  it  the  most 
ancient !  His  proof  of  its  great  antiquity,  we  need  scarcely 
say,  is  a  complete  failure.  Nothing  can  be  more  perverse  than 
his  style  of  argument. 

Another  admirer  of  the  Constantinopolitan  MSS.  is  Scholz. 
It  is  strange  however  that  he  has  not  always  followed  them  in 
his  text.  Notwithstanding  his  excessive  partiality  for  them, 
he  has  inserted  not  a  few  Alexandrine  readings. 

To  the  latter  party  belong  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tischen- 
dorf,  Penn. 

Others  again,  in  determining  the  value  of  readings  are 
influenced  not  so  much  by  the  fact  of  their  being  found  in 
a  more  ancient  or  a  modern  family,  but  by  their  internal  good- 
ness. They  do  not  think  that  because  they  are  in  the  Alex- 
andrine family  they  are  ancient  on  that  account  solely;  or 
because  they  exist  in  the  Constantinopolitan  family  they  are 
therefore  modern  ;  but  they  determine  the  value  by  internal 
goodness  aided  by  antiquity,  and  allow  that  an  ancient  reading 
may  be  found  in  a  copy  comparatively  modern.  Hence  they 
do  not  at  once  prefer  either  an  Alexandrine  or  a  Constanti- 
nopolitan reading,  simply  on  account  of  the  class  to  which  it 
belongs. 

We  do  not  agree  with  the  sentiments  of  the  first  party. 
Ceteris  paribus^  the  reading  of  an  ancient  copy  is  more  likely  to 
be  authentic  than  that  of  a  modern  one.     But  the  reading  of  a 


102  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

more  modern  copy  may  be  more  ancient  than  the  reading  of 
an  ancient  one.  A  modern  copy  itself  may  have  been  derived 
not  from  an  extant  one  more  ancient,  but  from  one  still  more 
ancient  no  longer  in  existence.  And  this  was  probably  the 
case  in  not  a  few  instances.  If  indeed  the  oldest  MSS.  extant 
were  fair  and  correct  transcripts  of  others  still  older  now  lost, 
the  nature  of  the  case  would  be  different.  But  that  is  some- 
times questionable.  The  texts  of  old  extant  MSS.  bear  traces 
of  revision  by  arbitrary  and  injudicious  critics. 

As  it  has  been  too  much  the  fashion  to  decry  the  oriental 
class  of  MSS.  because  they  are  junior,  let  us  see  how  far  they 
deserve  the  inferiority  and  neglect  to  which  some  consign 
them.  Griesbach  found  that  as  often  as  his  Alexandrine  and 
Western  recensions  coincided  in  their  readings  in  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans  and  the  first  to  the  Corinthians,  58  readings 
were  certain,  64  probable,  41  not  improbable.  Thus  163  were 
more  or  less  weighty  and  valuable.  On  the  contrary,  11  were 
manifestly  bad,  20  improbable,  and  25  scarcely  probable.  Thus 
56  were  without  the  appearance  of  being  true.  Here  some 
allowance  should  be  made  for  Griesbach's  opinion  of  the 
western  class,  which  was  too  high.  Let  us  compare  with  this 
estimate  the  oriental  class.  Over  against  56  readings  in  the 
western  class  (made  up  of  the  Alexandrine  and  western 
recensions)  more  or  less  devoid  of  the  appearance  of  being  true, 
let  us  put  as  many  certain  ones  in  the  oriental  class ;  opposite 
to  the  41  not  improbable  of  the  western,  let  us  put  as  many 
probable  of  the  eastern  ;  over  against  the  64  probable  of  the 
western  let  as  many  be  placed  not  improbable  of  the  eastern ; 
and  thus  there  will  be  161  readings  of  the  eastern  class  of 
greater  or  less  value,  and  only  58  either  plainly  false,  or  im- 
probable, or  scarcely  probable.  Hence  by  this  computation 
the  number  of  inferior  readings  in  both  is  about  equal. 

In  like  manner  Einck  found*  that  out  of  A.  B.  0.  D,  E,  F. 
*  Lucubratio  Critica,  p.  13. 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    DOCUMENTS.  103 

G.,  where,  in  the  iirst  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  they  agreed 
in  opposition  to  all  or  most  of  the  cursive  MSS.  (with  the 
occasional  exception  of  E.)  32  readings  should  be  adopted,  46 
rejected.  He  also  found  that  in  almost  all  the  uncial  MSS. 
only  13  readings,  in  the  same  epistle,  not  in  the  Oriental  class 
are  to  be  preferred,  and  103  to  be  rejected.  Griesbach  himself 
has  admitted  out  of  all  the  uncials  in  this  portion  but  37  read- 
ings, rejecting  41.  Surely  then  these  conclusions  will  mode- 
rate the  views  of  such  as  lay  undue  stress  on  the  western  class 
because  it  consists  of  the  oldest  MSS.,  and  depreciate  the 
oriental  because  almost  all  its  MSS.  are  junior  ones.  They 
shcAV  that  though  there  may  have  been  more  critical  handling 
of  copies  in  the  west,  there  was  probably  corruption  too  ;  that 
in  Italy,  Gaul,  and  Africa,  the  text  was  subjected  to  greater 
innovations  than  in  the  east.  The  circumstance  mentioned  by 
Scholz  that  it  is  chiefly  Alexandrine  and  western  writers  who 
speak  of  the  deterioration  of  the  Scriptures,  while  we  scarcely 
hear  of  an  author  belonging  to  Asia  and  Constantinople  mak- 
ing the  same  complaint,  is  not  without  force. 

It  should  also  be  observed  that  the  readings  of  A.  in 
the  epistles  of  Paul  agree  much  more  with  those  of  the  By- 
zantine text  which  is  in  our  junior  codices,  than  with  those 
found  in  the  old  MSS.  representing  the  western  or  Alexan- 
drine text.  * 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  we  sympathise  in  tlie 
sentiments  of  such  critics  as  Scholz  and  Matthaei,  who  unduly 
exalt  the  Constantinopolitan  above  the  Alexandrine. 

A  more  recent  and  popular  classification  of  MSS.  is  into 
ancient  and  more  recent.  Bentley  was  the  first  person  who 
proposed  to  edit  the  Greek  Testament  from  ancient  MSS., 
rejecting  the  evidence  of  modern  ones.  The  same  idea  was 
afterwards  applied  by  Lachraann,  but  not  fully,  nor  exactly  in 
the  way  that  Bentley  intended.  Tischendorf  has  followed  the 
*  See  Laurence  on  Griesbach's  classification  of  Greek  MSS.  p.  49,  ct  seq. 


104 


BIBLICAL    CKITICISM. 


same  classiticatiou,  but  without  restricting  it  in  the  manner 
Lachmann  does;  and  it  is  also  approved  by  Tregelles.  In 
drawing  the  line  between  ancient  and  modern  MSS.  different 
critics  will  necessarily  have  different  sentiments. 

But  here  again  it  is  obvious  that  many  modifications  must 
be  taken  into  account  by  such  as  take  a  text  from  the  ancient 
documents  alone.  Lachmann  has  acted  too  mechanically. 
As  he  has  not  regarded  the  internal  goodness  of  readings, 
which  indeed  he  did  not  profess  to  do,  he  has  not  produced  a 
critical  text.  He  has  merely  given  the  text  of  a  certain  class 
of  documents.  Tischendorf,  whose  purpose  was  to  give  a 
critical  edition  containing  as  pure  a  text  as  possible,  has 
succeeded  better  than  any  other  who  follows  the  new  classifi- 
cation. That  he  has  entirely  succeeded  is  more  than  he  him- 
self would  claim.  Had  he  taken  a  wider  range  of  authorities, 
and  spent  more  time  over  his  edition,  he  would  have  made  it 
much  better. 

What  then,  it  may  be  asked,  has  been  the  result  of  classi- 
fication-theories ?  Have  the  time  and  labour  spent  upon  them 
been  all  in  vain"?  The  principal  good  resulting  from  them 
has  been  the  examination  and  description  of  many  documents 
which  might  otherwise  have  been  neglected  at  the  time.  The 
collations  made  by  the  ingenious  framers  of  recensions  and 
classes  have  been  valuable.  But  we  are  unable  to  see  their 
other  benefits.  Divide  the  documents  as  we  may,  either  into 
eastern  and  western,  or  ancient  and  more  recent,  the  scale  in 
favour  of  a  particular  reading  as  probably  the  original  one,  is 
seldom  turned  by  the  orientalism  and  occidentalism  of  the 
testimonies,  or  even  by  their  ancient  and  modern  character. 
The  cetei-is  paribus  cases,  where  such  things  would  at  once 
settle  the  question,  scarcely  occur.  External  is  but  one  part  of 
the  evidence.  The  internal  is  equally  valuable  and  important. 
It  modifies,  changes,  outweighs  the  other  in  many  examples. 
We   are   thankful  to  the   collators  of  MSS.   for   their    great 


CLASSIFICATION   OF   DOCUMENTS.  105 

labour.  But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  they  be  often  com- 
peteut  to  make  the  best  critical  text  out  of  existing  materials. 
They  are  too  prone  to  give  undue  authority  to  external  evi- 
dence. Here  lies  their  temptation;  their  weak  point  is 
here.  It  is  true  that  critical  sagacity  may  be  united  with 
unwearied  diligence  and  accuracy  of  collation.  But  it  is  not 
commonly  so.  And  then  it  is  sufficient  for  one  man  to  collate 
well  several  important  documents,  whether  they  be  versions, 
MSS.,  or  patristic  citations.  It  exhausts  his  patience  and 
energy.  Hence  we  should  rather  see  the  collator  and  the 
editor  of  the  text  dissociated.  We  should  like  to  have  one 
person  for  each  department. 


-f 


CHAPTEK   VIIL 


HISTORY  OF  THE  FEINTED  TEXT. 

The  Greek  Testament  was  not  printed  so  early  as  the  Vulgate 
or  the  Hebrew  Bible,  because  the  influence  of  the  Romish 
church  was  opposed  to  the  circulation  of  the  original  text. 

The  first  part  of  the  Greek  Testament  which  was  printed 
consisted  of  the  thanksgiving  hymns  of  Mary  and  Zacharias, 
Luke  i.  42-56,  68-80,  appended  to  a  Greek  Psalter  published 
in  1486.  The  next  consisted  of  the  first  six  chapters  of  the 
gospel  by  John,  edited  by  Aldus  Manutius  at  Venice,  1504, 
4to.  In  1512  appeared  the  entire  gospel  in  Greek  and  Latin, 
at  Tubingen,  4to. 

The  entire  New  Testament  was  first  printed  in  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglott,  which  was  prepared  under  the  auspices 
and  at  the  expense  of  Cardinal  Ximenes.  The  whole  of  the 
work  is  distributed  into  six  parts ^  making  four  volumes,  the 
first  part  consisting  of  the  Greek  Testament  and  the  Vulgate 
version,  with  the  title  prefixed,  "  Novum  Testamentum  Graece 
et  Latine  nouiter  impressum."  It  is  in  folio,  and  a  subscrip- 
tion at  the  end  of  Revelation  gives  the  date  of  the  completion 
of  the  New  Testament,  10th  January  1514.  The  sixth  and 
last  part  ending  with  the  three  books  of  Maccabees,  has  at  the 
close  the  date  lOth  July  1517.     But  though  the  printing  of 


iriSToRV    (,)F   THE    I'lUNTED   TEXT.  107 

the  whole  work  was  finished  in  1517,  it  was  not  published  till 
1522,  because  the  Pope's  permission  had  not  been  obtained 
for  the  distribution  and  sale  of  the  work.  Of  the  MSS.  used 
in  preparing  this  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  we  have  no 
knowledge,  as  the  editors,  ^lius  Antonius  Nebrissensis, 
Demetrius  Cretensis,  Ferdinandus  Pintianus,  and  Lopez  de 
Stunica,  give  a  very  imperfect  account  of  them.  In  the  pre- 
face it  is  said  that  they  were  sent  from  the  Pope's  library  at 
Rome,  and  no  hint  is  given  about  others.  But  Stunica,  in  his 
controversy  with  Erasmus,  frequently  refers  to  the  Ood.  Rho- 
diensis  as  a  MS.  which  the  editors  used.  It  is  now  the  general 
opinion  that  they  were  modern  ones.  The  character  of  the 
readings  found  in  the  edition  is  sufficient  to  shew  this.  And 
since  almost  all  the  readings  are  found  in  six  or  eight  copies 
collated  by  Mill,  Wetstein,  and  Birch,  the  MSS.  must  have 
been  few  in  number.  Hence  the  boast  of  the  editors  that  they 
had  good  and  very  ancient  MSS.  is  vain.  On  thing  is  certain, 
that  the  celebrated  Cod.  B.  was  not  one  of  them.  As  Ximenes's 
MSS.,  according  to  his  biographer,  were  deposited  in  the  Uni- 
versity Library  at  Alcala,  inquiries  were  made  at  the  place 
respecting  them  by  Moldenhauer  and  Tychsen  when  travelling 
at  the  expense  of  the  King  of  Denmark,  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  (1784),  for  the  purpose  of  collating  ancient 
copies  of  the  Bible.  But  the  professors  in  question  were 
informed  that  the  MSS.  had  been  ignorantly  sold  to  a  rocket- 
maker  by  an  illiterate  librarian  in  1749.  Dr.  Bowring  subse- 
quently made  inquiries  and  believed  that  the  report  was  in- 
correct, the  same  MSS.  being  there  as  those  described  by  the 
Cardinal's  biographer  Gomez,  and  in  Bowring's  opinion  they 
are  both  modern  and  vcduelcss.^  But  Bowring's  letters  are  by 
no  means  clear  or  decisive  on  the  subject,  for  he  says  that 
"  the  number  of  Hebreiv  MSS.  in  the  University  was  only 

*  See  the  Mouthly^  Repository,  vol.  xvi.  for  1821,  p.  203,  and  New 
Series,  vol.  i.  for  1827,  p.  572. 


108  BIBLICAL    CIJITICISM. 

seven,  and  seven  is  the  number  that  now  remains."  Of  these 
seven  he  affirms  that  they  are  modern  and  valueless.  His 
attention  therefore  was  not  specially  directed  to  Greek  MSS. 
but  to  Hebrew  ones.  Indeed  he  states  that  there  are  at 
Alcala  no  Greek  MSS.  of  the  whole  Bible. 

Subsequent  inquiries  made  by  Dr.  James  Thomson  clear 
up  the  matter.  All  the  MSS.  formerly  known  to  belong  to 
Cardinal  Ximenes  and  preserved  in  the  library  at  Alcala,  are 
now,  with  the  rest  of  that  library,  at  Madrid ;  and  the  cata- 
logue made  in  1745  correctly  describes  the  MSS.  which  still 
exist.  The  librarian  at  Madrid  communicated  to  Dr.  Thom- 
son a  catalogue  of  the  Complutensian  MSS.,  whence  it  appears 
that  the  chief  MSS.  used  in  the  Polyglott  are  still  preserved  in 
safety  ]  but  the  Greek  New  Testament  is  not  contained  in  any 
of  them.  All  the  MSS.  used  in  the  Greek  Testament  by  the 
editors  were  furnished  from  the  Vatican,  to  which  they  were 
probably  returned.  It  would  appear  that  none  containing  the 
Greek  MSS.  were  ever  in  the  library  at  Alcala  or  in  the  pos- 
session of  Ximenes,  and  therefore  they  are  not  now  in  the 
library  at  Madrid. 

A  sale  to  a  rocket-maker  did  take  place  about  the  time 
mentioned.  But  the  librarian  was  a  learned  man,  and  could 
not  have  sold  M88.  Probably  he  sold  only  waste  and  useless 
paper  when  he  got  all  tlie  books  in  the  library  rebound.* 

It  was  believed  by  Wetstein  and  Semler,  that  the  text 
had  been  altered  by  the  editors  in  conformity  with  the 
Vulgate.  But  Goeze,  Michaelis,  Marsli,  and  others  shewed 
that  the  charge  was  true  to  a  very  limited  extent.  There 
is  little  doubt  that  1  John  v.  7  was  taken  from  the  Vul- 
gate in  consequence  of  the  form  it  appears  in;  and  some 
other  passages  were  probably  adapted  to  the  same  version, 
such  as  Matt.  x.  25 ;  yet  there  are  more  than  two  hundred 
passages  in  the  Catholic  epistles  in  which  the  Complutensian 
*  See  Biblical  Review  for  1847,  vol.  iii.  p.  186,  et  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINT?:D   TEXT.  109 

Greek  text  differs  from  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  as  there  printed. 
Hence  the  charge  generally  is  incon-ect. 

The  first  -published  Greek  Testament  was  that  of  Erasmus, 
which  appeared  at  Basel  in  1516,  folio,  printed  by  the  cele- 
brated Froben.  The  title  is,  "  Novum  Instrumentum  orane 
diligenter  ab  Erasmo  Roterodamo  recognitum  et  emendatura, 
non  solum  ad  graecam  veritatem,  verum  etiam  ad  multorum 
utriusque  linguae  Codicum,  eorumque  veterum  simul  et  emen- 
datorum  fidem,  postremo  ad  probatissimorum  autorum  cita- 
tionem,  emendationem  et  interpretationem,  praecipue  Origenis, 
Chrysostomi,  Cyrilli,  Vulgarij,  Hieronymi,  Cypriani,  Ambrosij, 
Hilarij,  Augustini,  una  cum  annotationibus  quae  lectorem  do- 
ceant,  quid  qua  ratione  mutatum  sit,"  &c.  The  Avork  contains 
the  Latin  Vulgate  as  well  as  the  Greek  text,  together  with 
notes.  In  the  preparation  of  this  edition,  Erasmus  used  five 
MSS.,  three  chiefly,  the  other  two  very  cursorily,  viz.  2  (of  the 
four  gospels),  2  (of  the  Acts  and  epistles),  and  1  (of  the  Apo- 
calypse). From  1  (gospels.  Acts,  and  epistles)  he  improved 
the  text  somewhat,  but  did  not  make  it  the  hasis  of  the  text, 
though  it  was  the  oldest  and  best  of  all,  belonging  to  the  tenth 
century.  He  also  made  use  of  4  (Acts  and  epistles)  for  re- 
touching the  text.  Thus  he  took  his  text  from  modern  MSS., 
and  those  very  few,  as  well  as  of  little  value.  But  the  editor  did 
not  confine  himself  wholly  to  them,  nor  to  the  writings  of  the 
fathers  ;  for  he  made  some  use  of  the  Vulgate,  and  even  of 
critical  conjectm-e.  The  only  copy  of  the  Revelation  he  had 
appears  to  have  wanted  the  last  six  verses,  which  he  supplied 
by  his  own  translation  from  the  Latin.  Hence  much  value 
cannot  belong  to  the  text,  especially  as  the  editor  spent  little 
time  upon  the  work.  It  was  proposed  to  him  on  the  17th 
April  1515,  and  the  subscription  announces  that  it  was  finished 
in  February  1516.  Truly  therefore  might  Erasmus  himself 
say  of  it,  "  praecipitatum  fuit  verius  quam  editum ;"  ^ox  the 
printing  of  the  text  and  annotations  could  not  have  occupied 


110  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

more  than  six  months,  and  from  the  time  Froben  first  proposed 
the  edition  till  the  completion  of  the  printing,  was  only  nine 
months  and  a  half.  Hartwell  Home  has  improved  upon  Mill's 
words,  by  saying  that  "  the  work  was  executed  in  the  short 
space  of  five  months,"  only  by  departing  farther  from  the 
truth ;  for  Mill  carefully  qualifies  his  statement  by  putting 
ferme^  "intra  menses  ferme  quinque."  It  was  very  unfortu- 
nate that  Erasmus  had  but  one  MS.  (1.)  of  the  Apocalypse, 
which  is  now  lost. 

A  second  edition  appeared  in  1519  at  the  same  place  and 
by  the  same  printer,  in  folio.  In  1522  appeared  the  third 
edition  with  1  John  v.  7,  inserted  for  the  first  time,  having 
been  taken  from  the  cod.  Montfortianus.  The  fourth  edition 
appeared  in  1527  ;  and  the  fifth  in  1535  all  in  folio,  from  the 
same  press. 

In  the  second  edition  he  used  one  MS.  at  least  which  he  did 
not  consult  in  the  first,  viz.  3  in  the  first  part,  or  the  gospels. 
Mill  says  *  that  the  text  of  the  second  edition  is  much  more 
accurate  than  that  of  the  first;  that  the  editor  restored  the 
true  reading  which  had  been  vitiated  in  the  former,  in  more 
than  330  places ;  but  departed  from  tlie  first  edition  to  adopt 
bad  readings  in  about  70  places. 

According  to  Millf  the  third  differs  from  the  second  in 
about  118  places,  36  of  them  being  altered  after  the  Aldine 
edition. 

In  the  fourth  edition  the  Complutensian  Polyglott  was 
used  by  Erasmus  for  the  first  time  especially  in  the  Eevela- 
tion.  According  to  Mill,:}:  it  differs  from  the  third  in  106 
places,  90  of  them  relating  to  the  Apocalypse  alone.  The  text 
of  the  fifth  is  so  very  like  that  of  the  fourth,  that  Mill  detected 
only  four  places  where  it  departs  from  its  predecessor.  § 

From  these   two  primary  editions   the    textus  receptus  or 
common  text  has  been   mainly  derived.      But  as  they  were 
*  Prolegomena,  1134.     t  Ibid,  1138.     |  Ibid,  1141.     §  Ibid,  1150. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT.  Ill 

based  on  few  materials,  and  those  not  of  the  best  kind  ;  as  the 
editors  also  conformed  their  texts  to  the  Vulgate  in  several 
places,  and  occasionally  translated  from  the  Latin  into  Greek, 
their  editions  cannot  be  highly  valued.  And  if  the  main 
source  or  sources  of  the  common  text  be  of  little  worth,  the 
stream  must  be  proportionately  inferior. 

From  the  Complutensian  and  Erasmian  a  gi-eat  many 
editions  were  taken,  with  slight  alterations.  The  former  was 
followed  in  the  first  edition  of  Robert  Stephens,  termed  the 
0  mirificam  edition,  because  the  preface  begins  with  those 
words,  referring  to  the  extraordinary  liberality  of  Francis  I. 
It  was  published  at  Paris  1546,  12mo.  Sixteen  MSS.  were 
used  by  the  editor.  According  to  Mill,*  he  departed  from 
the  Complutensian,  in  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles  581 
times ;  and  followed  the  authority  of  his  codices  only  37 
times.  In  other  places  he  preferred  to  the  Complutensian 
the  readings  of  other  editions,  especially  the  fifth  of  Erasmus, 
whether  his  MSS.  agreed  or  not.  In  the  Apocalypse  he 
scarcely  ever  deviated  from  Erasmus's  text.  The  second 
edition  appeared  at  the  same  place  1549,  12mo.  Mill  says 
that  it  differs  from  the  former  in  no  more  than  67  places.f 
The  preface  begins  in  the  same  manner. 

The  Plantin  editions  also  followed  the  Complutensian  text. 
They  appeared  at  Antwerp  1564  12mo,  1573  8vo,  1574 
32mo,  1590  Svo :  1591  24mo,  by  Rapheleng  at  Leyden, 
1601  16mo,  also  by  Rapheleng  at  Leyden:  1612  32mo,  by 
the  same. 

A  number  of  Genevan  editions  also  flowed  from  the 
same  text,  1609  24mo,  1619  4to,  1620  4to,  1628  4to, 
1632  24mo. 

In  like  manner  the  text  printed  in  the  Paris  Polyglott 
of  Le  Jay,  ninth  and  tenth  volumes,  follows  the  same  exem- 
plar, 1645  folio. 

*  Prolegomena,  1177.  \  Ibid,  1120. 


112  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

So  too  the  edition  of  Hermann  Goldhagen  at  Mainz 
1753  8vo.  This  is  accompanied  hy  various  readings,  the 
object  of  which  was  to  enhance  the  authority  of  the  Vulgate. 
The  editor  belonged  to  the  society  of  Jesuits. 

The  text  of  Erasmus  was  followed  in  the  Aldine  edition  of 
Andreas  Asulanus,  Venice,  (Aldus  Manntius)  1518  folio. 
But  the  text  of  this  very  rare  edition  is  not  a  mere  reprint  of 
Erasmus's  first,  as  has  sometimes  been  said.  Though  it  is 
very  like  it,  the  Aldine  has  been  amended  in  more  than  100 
places,  notwithstanding  it  has  been  corrupted  in  as  many. 
The  editor  appears  to  have  had  ancient  MSS.  though  nothing- 
is  known  of  them.  Some  have  thought  that  he  occasionally 
gave  readings  from  conjecture. 

The  same  text  was  repeated  by  N.  Gerbelius  in  an  edition 
dated  Hagenoae  1521  4to ;  by  John  Bebelius  at  Basel  1524 
8vo,  1531  8vo,  1535  8vo;  by  Cephalaeus  at  Strasburgh  1524 
8vo,  1534  8vo;  by  Thomas  Platter  at  Basel  1538  8vo,  1540 
8vo,  1543  Svo ;  by  Brylinger  at  Basel  1533  8vo,  1543  8vo, 
1548  Svo,  1549  8vo,  1553  8vo,  1556  8vo,  1558  8vo,  1586 
8vo  ;  by  John  Valder  at  Basel,  1536  16mo',  by  Heerwagen 
at  Basel  1545  folio ;  by  Froben  and  Episcopius  at  the  same 
place  1545  4to;  by  Curio  at  the  same  place  1545  16mo ;  at 
Leipzig  1542  8vo  j  by  Voegel  at  the  same  place  in  1563, 
1564  8vo,  1570  Svo;  by  Leonhard  Osten  at  Basel  1588;  and 
at  Wittenberg  by  Erasmus  Schmid,  1622  4to,  1635  Svo. 
Among  these  reprints  of  the  Erasmian  text,  some  are  more 
distinguished  than  the  rest,  such  as  that  of  Colinaeus  published 
at  Paris  in  1534  Svo.  Here  the  Erasmian  text  is  altered  in 
many  places  on  the  authority  of  the  Complutensian  and  some 
Greek  MSS.  such  as  Griesbach's  119,  120.  The  editor  has 
been  charged  with  altering  the  text  from  the  Vulgate,  a  con- 
jecture ;  but  several  critics  have  vindicated  him  from  these 
accusations.  In  the  edition  of  Paris  1543  Svo,  some  altera- 
tions were  made  from  MSS.      Wetstein    and    others    call    it 


HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT.  113 

Bogard's  edition,  but  improperly,  as  Bogard  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  publication. 

In  1550  appeared  Robert  Stephens'  third  edition  in 
folio  at  Paris.  This  is  called  the  Eegia  or  royal  edition, 
and  is  elegantly  printed.  In  it  he  followed  the  fifth  of 
Erasmus  (with  which  he  compared  65  MSS.  marking  the 
variations  in  the  margin),  and  the  Complutensian  text.  "  The 
learned,"  says  Hug,  "  have  taken  great  pains  to  discover 
the  MSS.  which  Stephens  used  in  his  third  edition.  This 
solicitude  has  been  occasioned  by  1  John  v.  7."*  They 
are  marked  by  the  Greek  letters  a,  (3,  y,  d,  s,  ?,  ^,  »5,  d,  i,  la,  t(3, 
ly,  id,  IS,  I?.  Stephens  states  that  he  got  eight  of  them  from  the 
Royal  Library  at  Paris,  viz.  y,  8,  i,  ?,  ^,  n,  ',  'i-  About  the  com- 
mencement of  the  last  centmy  Le  Long  tried  to  identify  them 
with  existing  MSS.,  and  appeared  tolerably  successful  in  the 
attempt.  His  observations  were  published  first  in  the  Journal 
des  Scjavans  for  May  1720,  and  subsequently  in  a  better  form 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  i.  But  Martin  e^tpressed  doubts 
as  to  the  identification;  and  Marsh  subjected  Le  Long's 
remarks  to  an  acute  criticism  in  his  letters  to  Travis  and 
notes  to  Michaelis's  Introduction.  Wetstein,  Fleischer,  and 
Griesbach  also  assisted  in  finding  out  these  Parisian  MSS. 
Travis  had  less  merit,  though  he  paid  much  attention  to  them. 
In  consequence  of  all  these  inquirers,  the  codices  were  toler- 
ably well  known  even  before  Griesbach  published  his  last 
edition ;  a  is  the  Complutensian  text ;  /3  is  the  cod.  Can- 
tabrigiensis  D. ;  y  is  probably  cod.  4  of  the  gospels  in  Gries- 
bach ;  ^  is  5  of  Griesbach  in  the  gospels,  Acts,  and  epistles  ; 
£  is  6  of  the  same  in  gospels.  Acts,  and  epistles ;  ?  of  the 
gospels  is  cod.  7 ;  i^  is  8  in  the  gospels,  and  Pauline  epistles, 
50  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles  of  Griesbach ;  ri  of  the 
gospels  is  L.  of  Griesbach  ;  /«  is  Griesbach's  8  of  the  Acts  and 
Catholic  epistles,  10  of  the  Pauline  ;  //3  is  9  of  the  gospels  in 

*  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  272. 
VOL.  II.  I 


114  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Griesbach  ;  ly  discovered  by  Marsh  at  Cambridge  is  Gries- 
bach's  9  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles,  10  of  the  Pauline ; 
;5  is  120  of  the  gospels  in  Griesbach;  '^  is  Griesbach's  10  in 
the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles,  12  in  the  Pauline,  2  in  the 
Apocalypse ;  /?  of  the  Apocalypse  is  3  of  Griesbach.  Of  /a  and 
/£  no  trace  has  been  found  in  modern  times.  The  question 
however,  in  regard  to  this  edition  of  Stephens  is,  not  what 
MSS.  he  made  use  of  in  it,  but  lioxo  he  used  them.  Did  he 
make  any  or  all  of  them  the  real  basis  of  his  text  ?  It  is  cer- 
tain he  did  not.  His  text  is  taken  from  the  fifth  of  Erasmus 
with  a  few  variations,  except  in  the  Apocalypse  where  the 
Complutensian  is  followed  in  preference.  Wetstein  states  on 
Mill's  authority  that  in  the  gospels,  Acts,  and  epistles,  he 
hardly  departs  from  the  Erasmian  text  twenty  times,  but  Mill 
does  not  say  so.  There  must  be  a  mistake  here,  and  the  num- 
ber is  probably  greater.  Besides,  Stephens  often  cites  all 
his  collated  MSS.  for  a  reading  not  in  his  text,  shewing  that 
his  text  was  not  based  on  his  collations,  but  that  the  latter 
were  entirely  supplemental.  If  his  MSS.  had  even  been 
ancient,  good,  numerous,  and  collated  with  the  greatest  care, 
to  none  of  which  descriptions  they  correspond,  they  could  not 
demonstrate  the  goodness  of  the  text  unless  the  text  were 
based  on  them.     But  it  was  not  so  based. 

All  the  fifteen  had  been  collated  by  his  son  Henry.  Only 
598  readings  according  to  Mill  (but  Marsh  578)  are  noted  by 
Stephens  in  the  margin,  where  the  Complutensian  text  differs 
from  his  own.  But  Mill  found  more  than  700  additional 
instances  in  which  they  differ.  Among  the  578  readings  attri- 
buted by  Stephens  to  the  Complutensian  edition,  according  to 
Marsh's  reckoning  the  same  distinguished  scholar  found  48 
inaccurately  ascribed  to  it.  "  Hence,"  says  Griesbach,  ''  every 
twelfth  reading  in  Stephens'  margin  is  erroneous,"* 

As  Stephens  folloAvs  the  Erasmian  text  in  this  edition,  he 
*  Prolegomena  in  Nov.  Test.  vol.  i.  p.  23,  ed.  Schulz. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   FEINTED   TEXT.  115 

has  the  words  of  1  John  v.  7  in  the  same  form  as  he  found 
them,  But  through  carelessness,  the  semicircle  is  erroneously- 
put  as  if  the  only  seven  MSS.  of  1  John  which  Stephens  had, 
omitted  no  more  than  the  words  sv  rw  ovpavwj  whereas  they 
omit  the  entire  passage  from  Iv  rCi  olpavSj  to  h  rfi  yp. 

In  1551  appeared  the  fourth  edition  of  Stephens  in  8vo 
at  Geneva,  in  Greek  and  Latin.  This  contains  exactly  the 
same  text  as  the  third,  except  in  two  places  where  it  is  made 
to  agree  with  the  first.  It  is  remarkable  as  being  the  first  into 
which  the  division  of  verses  was  introduced.  Another  edition, 
sometimes  called  the  fifth,  was  published  by  Kobert  Stephens 
the  son,  at  Paris  1569,  in  16mo. 

These  last  editions  of  Stephens  were  followed  in  the  Basel 
edition  of  Oporinus,  1552  16mo ;  in  the  Frankfort  editions  of 
Wechel,  1597  fob,  1600  16mo,  1601  fob ;  and  in  the  Basel 
edition  of  Brylinger,  1563  8vo,  where  various  readings  taken 
from  Stephens'  third  edition  are  put  in  the  margin ;  but  there 
are  some  not  from  that  source.  Hug  says  that  they  are  from 
Aldus  and  the  Vulgate.  The  Stephanie  text  of  the  later 
editions  is  also  followed  in  the  editions  of  Crispin  at  Geneva, 
1553  8vo,  1563  12mo,  1604  16mo;  in  the  Zurich  editions  of 
Froschover,  1559  and  1566,  both  octavo. 

The  Complutensian  text  chiefly,  with  some  readings  from 
the  Erasmian,  formed  the  basis  of  the  text  in  the  Antwerp 
Polyglott,  1571,  1572,  vol.  v.,  and  of  the  editions  published 
by  Plantin  at  Antwerp  in  Greek  and  Latin,  1572,  1584  folio, 
and  1574,  1583  8vo.  The  editions  of  Rapheleng,  Ley  den, 
1609,  1613  8vo,  are  nothing  but  reprints  of  Plantin's;  which 
is  also  the  case  with  the  Commelin  editions,  1599  fob,  and 
1616  fob 

The  next  person  after  the  Complutensian  editors,  Erasmus 
and  Stephens,  who  advanced  the  criticism  of  the  Greek 
Testament  was  Theodore  Beza,  who  had  fled  from  France 
to  Switzerland  on  account  of  his  religion  and  become  the 
disciple  of  Calvin  at  Geneva. 


116  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

The  first  edition,  properly  so  called,  was  published  in  1565 
folio  at  Geneva.  The  basis  of  the  text  in  it  was  the  third 
edition  of  Stephens.  But  Beza  had  more  materials  than  those 
used  in  that  edition.  He  got  from  Henry  Stephens  some 
printed  edition  (exemplar)  of  the  Greek  Testament  prior  to 
any  of  those  published  by  the  father,  in  which  the  son  had 
noted  the  readings  of  the  MSS.  he  had  collated  for  his  father's 
editions.  The  collection  formed  by  H.  Stephens  having  come 
into  Beza's  hands,  and  it  being  known  that  more  than  thirty 
MSS.  had  been  seen  by  the  collator,  though  only  fifteen  were 
actually  quoted  in  the  edition  of  1550,  Beza  says  at  random,  "Ad 
haec  omnia  accessit  exemplar  ex  Stephani  nostri  bibliotheca 
cum  viginti  quinque  plus  minus  manuscriptis  codicibus."  &c. 

The  edition  is  accompanied  by  the  Vulgate,  a  Latin  version 
made  by  Beza  himself,  and  exegetical  remarks. 

The  second  edition  appeared  in  1582  folio,  also  at  Geneva. 
For  this  impression  he  had  the  assistance  of  two  new  MSS., 
viz.,  the  Clermont  and  the  Cambridge.  He  also  made  some 
use  of  the  Syriac  version,  and  an  Arabic  one  of  some  books  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  seventeen  MSS.  of  Stephens  men- 
tioned in  the  dedication,  is  a  mistake  for  sixteen.  The  third 
edition  was  published  in  1589  folio,  Geneva,  from  which  the 
translation  of  our  present  English  Bible  was  cJiiejiy^  but  not 
invariably  taken.     The  fourth  appeared  in  1598  folio,  Geneva. 

The  editions  of  Beza  were  often  reprinted,  especially  in 
Holland,  and  contributed  very  much  to  the  settlement  of  the 
text  hitherto  somewhat  fluctuating.  But  though  Beza  had 
better  materials  than  Stephens,  he  did  not  use  them  as  well 
as  he  should  have  done.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  carefully 
examined  them,  or  to  have  applied  them  on  any  recognised 
principles.  He  acted  negligently  and  inconstantly  with  regard 
to  them.  Hence  his  editions  vary  considerably.  According 
to  Wetstein,  his  text  disagrees  with  Stephens'  in  about  fifty 
places.  He  has  besides  expressed  150  places  differently  from 
those  of  his  predecessor,  in  his  version^  or  approved  of  them  in 


HISTORY   OF   THE    PRINTED   TEXT.  117 

his  7iotes.  In  600  places  at  least  he  threw  doubts  on  the  re- 
ceived reading.*  He  preferred  without  reason  the  readings  of 
many  other  editions ;  while  he  sometimes  followed  the  Syriac 
version  alone,  or  the  Latin,  or  one  or  two  MSS.,  or  conjecture. 
Hence  he  was  by  no  means  a  good  critic ;  though  we  should 
not  expect  in  that  day  what  we  do  at  the  present. 

The  first  Elzevir  edition  appeared  in  1624  16mo,  Leyden. 
The  editor's  name  is  unknown,  and  therefore  it  goes  by  the 
printer's.  As  to  the  text,  it  follows  the  third  of  Stephens' 
very  closely,  differing  from  it  only  in  145  places,  which  are 
enumerated  by  Tischendorf  in  various  editions  of  his  Greek 
Testament.  The  editor  does  not  appear  to  have  consulted  any 
Greek  MSS.,  for  all  his  readings  are  found  either  in  Stephens 
or  Beza. 

The  second  edition  appeared  in  1633  from  the  same  press, 
in  12mo,  and  is  the  best  of  all  the  Elzevir  editions.  In  the 
preface  to  the  reader  it  is  stated,  "  textum  ergo  habes  nunc 
ab  omnibus  receptum" — words  which  became  prophetic ;  for 
the  edition  became  the  editio  recepta  in  succeeding  centuries. 
Subsequently  the  latter  text  was  repeated  in  1641, 1656, 1662, 
1670,  1678.  It  was  this  text  which  was  commonly  followed 
on  the  continent  till  of  late.  Perhaps  we  should  say  with 
Tregelles  professedly  followed,  for  very  few,  says  the  same 
critic,  "  really  follow  throughout  the  Elzevir  text ;  in  places 
in  which  it  differs  from  the  Stephanie  they  sometimes  follow 
the  latter  5  and  sometimes  they  differ  from  both."-]- 

From  the  descriptions  already  given  we  may  easily  discern 
the  value  of  the  commonly  received  text.  It  is  suhstanticdly 
that  of  the  Elzevirs.  That  again  flowed  from  Beza's  editions 
and  the  third  of  Stephens.  Beza  himself  had  mostly  followed 
Stephens'  third.  The  latter,  with  a  few  exceptions,  was 
derived  from  the  fifth  of  Erasmus,  and  from  the  Complutensian 

*  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  vol.  ii.  pp.  7,  8. 
■j"  The  Book  of  Revelation  in  Greek,  Introduction,  p.  xiv. 


118  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

in  the  Apocalypse.  Erasmus  again  nearly  repeated  in  his 
fifth  the  text  of  his  fourth,  in  which  he  usually  followed  the 
Complutensian,  particularly  in  the  Apocalypse,  and  some 
modern  MSS.  The  MSS.  from  which  the  Complutensian 
was  printed  were  few  and  comparatively  valueless.  Thus  the 
more  closely  the  original  sources  of  the  received  text  are  ex- 
amined, the  less  important  do  they  appear.  The  materials 
in  possession  of  the  earliest  editors  were  scanty.  They  were 
of  inferior  quality.  And  those  who  employed  them  did  not 
even  make  the  best  use  of  them.  They  did  not  thoroughly 
collate  them.  They  took  no  pains  to  ascertain  their  age  and 
value.  They  did  not  give  all  their  readings.  They  were 
very  negligent  in  citing  them.  Indeed,  they  had  no  critical 
rules  by  which  tliey  professed  to  be  guided.  They  did  not 
follow  any  definite  plan  in  deciding  between  discrepant  read- 
ings. All  this  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  in  the  infancy  of 
criticism.  It  is  very  much  what  might  have  been  expected. 
But  it  is  matter  of  surprise  that  the  same  text  should  still  be 
upheld  as  superior  to  all  that  have  been  more  recently  pub- 
lished with  the  assistance  of  very  superior  and  more  numerous 
testimonies.  Nothing  can  be  more  effectual  or  more  just 
than  the  analysis  of  this  text  given  by  Griesbach  in  a  single 
paragraph,  with  the  most  appropriate  brevity,  "  Editiones 
recentiores  sequuntur  Elsevirianam  ;  haec  compilata  est  ex 
editionibus  Bezae  et  Stephani  tertia ;  Beza  itidem  expressit 
Stephanicam  tertiam,  nonnullis  tamen,  pro  lubitu  fere  ac 
absque  idonea  auctoritate,  mutatis ;  Stephani  tertia  presse 
sequitur  Erasmicam  quintam,  paucissimis  tantum  locis  et 
Apocalypsi  exceptis,  ubi  Complutensem  Erasmicae  praetulit ; 
Erasmus  vero  textum,  ut  potidt^  constituit  e  codicibus  paucis- 
simis et  satis  recentibus,  omnibus  subsidiis  destitutus,  praeter 
versionem  Vulgatam  interpolatam,  et  scripta  nonnullorum,  sed 
paucorum,  nee  accurate  editorum,  Patrum."* 
*   Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  xxxvii. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT.  119 

The  editions  of  Stephen  Curcellaeus,  from  the  press  of  the 
Elzevirs  at  Amsterdam,  deserve  to  be  mentioned.  The  first 
appeared  in  1658  12mo,  and  was  reprinted  in  1675,  1685, 
1699.  The  editor  gave  various  readings,  for  the  first  time, 
from  two  Greek  MSS.,  beside  those  copied  fi-om  former  edi- 
tions, chiefly  from  the  Wechelian  margin.  He  has  been 
charged  with  favouring  the  sentiments  of  the  Socinians.  The 
editions  of  Boeder,  at  Strasburgh,  1645,  1660  12mo,  follow 
the  Elzevir  text  chieflj,  with  some  readings  from  Stephens' 
third.  The  two  editions  of  Henry  Stephens,  1576,  1587 
16mo,  depart  from  Beza's  text.  Morin  follows  the  Elzevir 
text,  Paris  1628.  The  beautiful  edition  of  Blaw  at  Amster- 
dam, 1633  12mo,  is  a  mere  reprint  of  the  second  Elzevir. 
Wetstein  and  Smith  at  Amsterdam  also  reprinted  the  text  of 
the  Elzevirs,  with  the  Vulgate,  and  Arias  Montanus'  Latin 
version.     It  was  superintended  by  Leusden,  1698  8vo. 

Brian  Walton,  the  celebrated  editor  of  the  London  Poly- 
giott,  furnished  a  better  and  more  copious  collection  of  various 
readings  than  had  appeared  before  in  any  edition,  and  gave  a 
new  impetus  to  the  criticism  of  the  text.  The  fifth  volume  of 
that  work  contains  the  Greek  text  with  a  Latin  version,  as 
also  the  Vulgate,  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic,  and  in  the 
gospels  the  Persic,  each  version  with  its  own  translation. 
Under  the  Greek  text  are  readings  from  the  Alexandrine  MS. 
(A.)  The  collection  of  various  readings  is  in  the  sixth  volume. 
It  contains  the  readings  of  sixteen  MSS.  collated  under  the 
superintendence  of  Ussher  ;  the  Velezian  readings,  which 
Marsh  has  since  demonstrated  to  be  forgeries ;  those  which 
Stephens  had  printed  in  the  margin,  and  those  of  Wechel, 
taken  from  Curcellaeus.  Walton's  text  is  that  of  Stephens' 
third  edition. 

This  rich  collection  was  enlarged  by  Dr.  John  Fell,  Bishop 
of  Oxford,  in  his  critical  edition  published  at  Oxford  in  1675 
12mo.     The  editor,  whose  name  does  not  appear  in  the  work, 


120  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

states,  that  lie  collated  twelve  MSS.  in  the  Bodleian,  gave  the 
various  readings  of  two  in  the  library  of  Dublin  College,  ot 
four  procured  from  France,  Marshall's  extracts  from  the  Coptic 
and  Gothic  versions,  and  those  of  twenty-two  Roman  MSS. 
collected  by  Caryophilus  at  the  command  of  Pope  Urban  VIII., 
and  afterwards  published  by  Possinus  in  his  Catena  on  Mark's 
gospel,  Rome,  1673  folio.  As  stated  in  the  title-page,  the 
edition  contains  various  readings  from  more  than  100  MSS. 
The  edition  was  reprinted,  with  additions  by  John  Gregory, 
at  Oxford,  1703  folio.  But  Gregory's  extracts  from  the  Greek 
fathers  and  Greek  profane  authors  are  of  little  value.  The 
editor  died  before  it  was  published.  The  first  edition  was 
twice  reprinted  in  Germany,  at  Leipzig,  in  1697  and  1702 
8vo. 

Here,  it  has  been  said,  the  infancy  of  the  criticism  of  the 
Greek  Testament  terminates,  and  its  manhood  begins. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


HISTOEY    OF    THE    PRINTED    TEXT  (Continued). 

Dr.  John  Mill,  encouraged  and  aided  by  Bishop  Fell,  gave 
to  the  world  a  new  edition  in  1707,  folio,  Oxford.  The  text 
is  that  of  Stephens'  third  edition,  accurately  reprinted,  with 
the  various  readings  and  parallel  passages  below.  The  work 
was  the  labour  of  thirty  years,  and  was  finished  only  fourteen 
days  before  his  death.  In  it  the  learned  editor  brought  to- 
gether all  the  collections  of  various  readings  existing  before 
his  day.  He  also  made  very  considerable  additions,  for  he 
gave  some  which  Fell  had  left  in  MS.  He  collated  several 
ancient  editions  more  accurately  than  they  had  been  before, 
got  extracts  from  Greek  MSS.  which  had  not  been  collated, 
and  better  extracts  from  others  that  had  been  examined.  He 
also  revised  and  increased  Fell's  readings  from  the  Coptic  and 
Gothic  versions,  and  selected  very  many  with  his  own  hand 
ft-om  the  oriental  versions  printed  in  the  London  Polyglott, 
unhappily  in  consequence  of  unacquaintedness  with  the  ori- 
ginals, from  their  Latin  translations.  Nor  did  he  neglect 
quotations  from  the  fathers — a  source  of  criticism  looked  upon 
by  his  patron  as  useless.  To  the  work  are  prefixed  learned 
prolegomena  in  which  he  accurately  describes  his  MSS.,  their 
localities,  ages,  peculiarities,  &c.,  the  editions  of  the  Greek 


122  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Testament,  with  various  other  topics,  such  as  the  formation  of 
the  canon,  which  few  scholars  even  now  should  wish  to  be 
absent.  The  prolegomena  were  printed  separately,  and  ac- 
companied with  notes,  at  Koenigsberg,  bj  Salthenius.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  work  contains  no  less  than  30,000  various 
readings,  many  of  them,  doubtless,  trifling,  and  not  a  few 
manifest  errata.  "  He  was  too  painfully  accurate,"  says 
Michaelis,  "  in  regard  to  trifles."  In  consequence  of  this 
immense  collection  Mill  was  exposed  to  many  attacks,  both  in 
England  and  Germany,  as  though  his  labours  tended  to  shake 
the  foundation  of  the  Christian  religion.  The  numerous  mis- 
takes and  inaccuracies  which  have  since  been  found  in  this 
great  work  are  natural ;  for  who  in  such  circumstances  could 
have  wholly  avoided  them  ? 

Ludolph  Kiister  reprinted  it  at  Amsterdam  in  1710  folio, 
adding  the  readings  of  twelve  new  MSS.,  eleven  of  which 
were  collated  for  him  by  others,  and  one  of  which,  viz.,  cod. 
Boernerianus  (of  Paul's  epistles)  he  collated  himself.  Another, 
which  has  on  the  title  page  editio  secimda^  Leipzig,  1723  folio, 
is  the  same  Avith  a  new  title  page. 

In  two  editions  published  at  Amsterdam,  1711,  1735  8vo, 
Gerhard  of  Mastricht  gave  various  readings  from  Fell's  col- 
lection and  a  Vienna  MS.  which  he  himself  collated.  After 
the  preface  by  Henry  Wetstein  the  publisher,  are  forty-three 
critical  canons  for  judging  of  various  readings  by  G.  D.  T.  M. 
D.  (Gerhardus  de  Trajectu  Mosae  doctor) ;  prolegomena  by 
the  same ;  the  prefaces  of  Curcellaeus,  Fell,  and  Whitby.  At 
the  end  are  thirty-seven  pages  of  critical  notes  relating  to  the 
23d  canon.  Various  maps  accompany  the  work,  and  a  great 
many  parallel  references  in  the  inner  margin  chiefly  taken 
from  Mill.  According  to  Michaelis,  Mastricht  was  not  happy 
in  his  choice  of  various  readings.  The  second  edition  was 
revised  by  the  celebrated  Wetstein.  The  text  is  the  Elzevir. 
In  1729  there  appeared  at  London,  in  two  volumes  octavo. 


HISTORY   OF   THE    PRINTED   TEXT.  128 

"  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  and  English,  containing  the 
original  text,  corrected  from  the  authority  of  the  most  authentic 
manuscripts ;  and  a  new  version  formed  agreeably  to  the  illus- 
trations of  the  most  learned  commentators  and  critics ;  with 
notes  and  various  readings."  The  editor's  name  is  not  given. 
The  first  volume  contains  the  gospels  and  Acts ;  the  second, 
the  remaining  books.  The  critical  notes  are  few,  especially  in 
the  first  volume.  The  editor  (Mace)  seems  to  have  used  no 
other  edition  than  Kiister's  Mill  for  the  various  readings  he 
gives ;  and  to  have  collated  no  MS.  But  he  has  supplied  a 
good  deal  by  his  own  conjecture,  and  introduced  readings  into 
the  text  without  any  authority.  Dr.  Leonard  Twells  after- 
wards published  a  critical  examination  cf  it. 

The  first  real  attempt  to  apply  the  accumulated  materials, 
or  in  other  words  to  amend  the  textus  Tece])tus  (for  Mace's  can 
hardly  be  reckoned  an  earnest  attempt  to  do  so),  was  made  by 
John  Albert  Bengel,  Abbot  of  Alpirspach  in  Wirtemburg.  His 
edition  appeared  at  Tubingen,  1734  4to,  to  which  are  subjoined 
his  "  Introductio  in  crisin  Novi  Testamenti,"  treating  of  MSS., 
versions,  and  editions,  with  critical  rules  j  his  collection  of 
various  readings  taken  chiefly  from  Mill,  and  an  "  Epilogus." 
The  "  Introductio"  contains  his  view  of  families,  or  recensions^ 
as  they  were  afterwards  called ;  and  gave  the  first  impulse  to 
the  investigation  of  that  doctrine.  Important  additions  were 
made  to  the  readings  selected  from  Mill,  partly  from  MSS.  before 
uncollated,  partly  in  readings  selected  with  more  accuracy  than 
his  predecessors  from  ancient  versions,  and  partly  by  means  of 
extracts  which,  though  printed,  had  not  been  brought  together. 
Under  the  text  are  some  select  readings,  of  which  Bengel 
expressed  his  opinion  by  the  Greek  letters  a,  /3,  7,  6,  £.  In 
forming  his  eclectic  text,  the  pious  editor  imposed  on  himself 
the  singular  law  not  to  give  any  thing  which  had  not  been 
printed  before.  But  he  was  obliged  to  depart  from  this  in  the 
Revelation  ;  for  there  he  inserted  readings  not  before  printed. 


124  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Many  opponents  were  raised  up  against  him,  of  whom  the 
most  violent,  as  well  as  the  ablest,  was  Wetstein. 

Bengel's  edition  was  reprinted  several  times  at  Stuttgard 
in  1739,  1753  8vo ;  at  Tubingen  1762,  1776,  1790  8vo— 
the  last  superintended  by  his  son  Ernst  Bengel,  who  intro- 
duced several  improvements.  They  are  all  however  without 
the  critical  apparatus,  which  was  retained  in  the  improved 
edition  superintended  by  Burk,  1763  4to,  Tiibingen. 

John  James  Wetstein,  a  native  of  Basel,  contributed  in  no 
small  degree  to  the  advancement  of  sacred  criticism  by  his 
celebrated  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  published  at  Am- 
sterdam in  two  folio  volumes,  the  first  containing  the  gospels, 
dated  1751 ;  the  second  containing  the  other  books,  1752.  He 
had  before  published  Prolegomena  ad  Novi  Testamenti  Graeci 
editionem  accuratissima^n,  in  1730  4to,  treating  in  sixteen 
chapters  of  MSS.,  versions,  Greek  writers,  editions,  and  other 
particulars.  Though  it  was  his  wish  to  give  a  new  and  cor- 
rected text,  yet  various  circumstances  necessarily  led  him  to 
print  merely  the  textus  receptus.  But  such  readings  as  he  did 
prefer  are  indicated  notwithstanding,  partly  in  the  text  itself 
by  the  sign  of  omission,  partly  in  the  inner  margin  by  the  ad- 
dition of  the  reading  he  reckoned  authentic.  His  collection  of 
various  readings,  with  their  respective  authorities,  far  exceeds 
all  former  works  of  tlie  same  kind  both  in  copiousness  and  value, 
the  fruit  of  untiring  labour  for  thirty  years.  He  corrected  and 
increased  the  extracts  given  by  Mill  from  editions,  versions, 
and  the  fathers.  Bengel's  extracts  from  MSS.  he  transferred 
entire  into  his  materials.  He  also  collated  anew  many  MSS. 
that  had  been  examined  only  superficially,  examined  others 
for  the  first  time,  used  extracts  furnished  to  him  by  other 
parties,  and  employed  the  Philoxenian  version  for  the  first 
time.  In  search  of  these  materials  he  repaired  to  Germany, 
France,  Holland,  England ;  but  he  obtained  most  in  the  Royal 
library  in  Paris.     Upwards  of  40  codices  were  collated  by 


HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT.  125 

him  for  the  first  time,  or  for  the  first  time  properly.  This  is 
exclusive  of  the  collations  he  procured  from  others.  The 
uncial  MSS.  he  designated  by  the  letters  of  the  alphabet,  and 
the  cursive  by  numbers — a  very  convenient  expedient,  which 
has  been  followed  by  subsequent  editors  and  critics.  In  ad- 
dition to  all  this  apparatus  there  are  many  exegetical  notes, 
consisting  for  the  most  part  of  extracts  from  Greek,  Latin,  and 
Jewish  writers,  designed  to  elucidate  the  meaning  of  words  and 
clauses.  These  annotations  are  often  useless,  having  little 
reference  to  the  passages  to  which  they  are  appended,  and  con- 
tributing nothing  to  their  right  interpretation.  They  have  also 
subjected  him  to  various  charges  of  partiality  and  heterodoxy. 
Notwithstanding  the  defects  and  inaccuracies  observable 
in  the  work,  it  is  still  indispensable  to  all  who  are  occu- 
pied with  sacred  criticism ;  and  will  ever  remain  a  marvel- 
lous monument  of  indomitable  energy  and  diligence,  united 
to  an  extent  of  philological  learning  rarely  surpassed  by  any 
single  man.  The  editor  does  not  seem  to  have  apprehended 
the  doctrine  of  recensions,  at  least  he  has  made  no  use  of  it  in 
practice.  Hence,  some  think  that  the  value  of  the  work  is 
diminished.  The  prolegomena  occupy  a  threefold  place.  To 
the  gospels  is  prefixed  that  portion  which  relates  to  the  autho- 
rities used  in  them.  To  the  second  volume  is  prefixed  that 
part  relating  to  the  documents  of  the  apostolical  epistles. 
Similar  prolegomena  precede  the  Apocalypse.  Though  these 
prolegomena  taken  together  are  suhstantiaUy  the  same  as 
the  treatise  he  had  published  twenty  years  before,  yet  many 
things  are  altered  and  many  added.  The  whole  contain  a 
treasure  of  critical  learning  which  few  will  dispense  with  even 
at  the  present  day.  They  were  republished  by  Semler  at 
Halle  (1764,  8vo),  who  affixed  valuable  notes  and  an  ap- 
pendix. The  Apocalypse  is  followed  by  three  tracts,  the  first 
entitled  Animadversiones  et  cautiones  ad  examen  variantium 
lectionum  N.  T.  necessariaej  which  was  the  last  chapter  in  the 


126  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

former  edition  of  the  prolegomena  ;  the  second,  De  interpreta- 
tione  Novi  Testamenti ;  the  third,  De  interpretatione  lihri  Apo- 
calypseos.  At  the  end  are  two  Syriac  epistles  of  Clement  oi 
Rome,  taken  from  a  MS.  of  the  old  Sjriac  version.  But  they 
are  not  authentic,  though  Wetstein  so  believed  them.  We 
cannot  do  justice  to  this  distinguished  scholar,  without  consi- 
dering him  as  a  critic  and  as  a  theologian  separately.  As  a 
critic,  his  judgment  has  been  variously  estimated.  All  nmst 
admit  his  general  accuracy  in  collecting  and  arranging  his 
materials.  His  diligence  in  amassing  materials  was  great. 
His  profound  erudition  is  everywhere  apparent.  But  his 
judgment  in  respect  to  the  character  of  MSS.,  their  value, 
their  age,  and  the  form  of  text  he  preferred,  was  hardly  com- 
mensurate with  his  ability  in  collating  documents,  his  diligence 
in  bringing  their  readings  together,  his  general  accuracy,  or 
his  honest  candour.  He  was  probably  deficient  in  critical 
tact  and  analysis.  Where  he  has  most  erred  in  opinion  is  in 
respect  to  the  value  of  the  Vulgate  version,  which  he  unjustly 
depreciated.  He  also  entertained  an  unfavourable  opinion  of 
the  codices  Graeco-Latini,  supposing  that  the  Greek  text  in 
them  had  been  altered  from  the  Latin,  by  which  their  value  is 
greatly  deteriorated.  Even  the  MSS.  whose  readings  coincide 
with  the  Latin,  such  as  A.  he  depreciated.  By  these  views  the 
most  ancient  and  important  witnesses  are  deprived  of  the  right 
of  giving  evidence,  and  the  critic  must  have  recourse  to  modern 
ones.  But  such  opinions  were  combated  and  disproved  by  his 
annotator  Semler,  by  Woide,  Griesbach,  and  Michaelis. 
Hence,  his  judgment  of  the  more  ancient  MSS.  was  not 
correct.  Such  however  were  not  his  first  sentiments,  as  his 
prolegomena  published  in  1730  shew",  where  he  takes  a  juster 
view  of  the  more  ancient  documents. 

As  a  theologian,  he  is  accused  of  having  entertained 
Socinian  sentiments,  or,sentiments  at  least  inclining  that  way; 
and  perhaps  the  charge  is  not  wholly  unfounded,  as  some  of 


HISTORY  OF  THE   PRINTED   TEXT.  127 

his  notes  will  shew.  But  these  peculiar  opinions  did  not  pre- 
judice him  as  a  critic,  or  warp  his  judgment.  Unfortunately, 
his  work  exposed  him  to  many  attacks.  Opponents  appeared 
against  him.  Charges  were  freely  adduced  to  injure  him. 
But  his  fame  has  survived  them  all.  Even  Michaelis  was 
prejudiced  against  him,  but  Marsh  vindicated  him  against  the 
learned  professor.  In  1831  appeared  at  Rotterdam,  in  royal 
quarto,  the  first  volume  of  a  new  edition  of  Wetstein's  work, 
enlarged  and  amended,  professing  to  contain  the  four  gospels, 
by  J.  A.  Lotze.  Various  additions,  omissions,  and  improve- 
ments are  introduced  into  the  prolegomena  by  the  editor,  in 
consequence  of  whose  death  the  work  was  discontinued,  with- 
out any  part  of  the  text  having  appeared. 

In  1763,  Mr.  Bowyer,  a  printer  in  London,  published  the 
Greek  Testament  with  a  text  conformable  to  Wetstein's  ideas. 
Part  of  the  second  volume  consisted  of  conjectural  emendations 
of  learned  men  collected  together.  Both  were  in  12mo. 
It  would  appear  from  the  list  at  the  end  of  the  text  that 
the  number  of  alterations  made  in  the  text,  exclusive  of 
omissions,  amounts  to  334.  In  this  sum  the  Revelation  is  not 
included,  because  there  the  changes  were  very  numerous. 
Part  of  the  second  volume  has  been  reprinted  more  than  once, 
at  London,  1772,  1782,  1812,  with  an  English  title. 

We  have  next  to  speak  of  a  scholar  who  is  pre-eminently 
distinguished  in  the  history  of  New  Testament  criticism,  Dr. 
John  James  Griesbach,  His  labours  in  this  department  began 
mth  an  edition  of  the  historical  books,  in  two  volumes  8vo, 
published  at  Halle  1774,  1775,  the  former  containing  the  first 
three  gospels  synoptically  ai-ranged ;  the  latter,  John's  gospel 
and  the  Acts.  In  the  year  1775  he  also  published  the  epistles 
and  Apocalypse.  But  in  1777  he  gave  the  four  gospels  and 
Acts  in  their  natural  and  usual  form,  styling  the  volume, 
volumen  I.  to  accompany  the  volume  containing  the  epistles  and 
Apocalypse  which  had  appeared  two  years  before. 


128  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

The  common  text  is  altered  according  to  the  judgment  of 
the  editor,  founded  on  a  careful  comparison  of  his  materials. 
Nothing  however  is  changed  by  conjecture ;  nor  is  any  tiling 
taken  into  the  text  on  the  sole  authority  of  versions  and  cita- 
tions, without  the  sanction  of  MSS.  The  idea  oi  families  or 
recensions  recommended  by  Bengel  and  Semler,  the  editor 
adopted  and  carried  out  with  great  acuteness  and  ability.  The 
apparatus  of  various  readings  is  placed  below  the  text.  This 
is  carefully  selected  from  Mill,  Wetstein,  and  Bengel,  with  the 
omission  of  all  extracts  that  were  unimportant,  or  appeared  to 
be  mere  errata,  or  conjectures.  He  corrected  many  mistakes 
that  had  been  made  by  his  predecessors  in  their  quotations, 
especially  from  oriental  versions.  Nor  did  Griesbach  merely 
sift  and  amend  the  materials  already  existing.  He  also 
enlarged  them.  He  added  extracts  from  nine  MSS.  in  the 
libraries  of  England  and  France,  two  collated  by  Knittel  at 
Wolfenbiittel,  one  at  Giessen  ;  and  extracts  from  the  old  Latin 
versions  published  by  Sabatier  and  Blanchini.  He  also  gave 
new  extracts  from  the  Greek  fathers,  especially  Origen.  In  his 
Synibolae  Criticae  (Halle,  2  vols.  8vo,  1785,  1793),  he  after- 
wards gave  a  full  account  of  his  collations.  Such  was  the 
commencement  of  Griesbach's  researches,  the  first  fruits  of 
those  literary  labours  which  constitute  an  important  era  in 
the  criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament. 

In  1776  was  published  at  London  in  2  vols.  12mo,  Dr. 
Harwood's  "  New  Testament,  collated  with  the  most  approved 
MSS.,"  &c.  Here  the  editor  freely  departs  from  the  com- 
mon text.  Two  MSS.  especially  are  much  followed,  viz.  the 
Cambridge  or  D.  in  the  gospels  and  Acts;  and  the  Cler- 
mont or  D.  in  the  epistles.  Hence  little  value  attaches  to  the 
edition,  especially  as  the  editor  evinces  strong  partialities  for 
the  tenets  of  Arianism. 

Between  the  years  1782  and  1788,  Christian  Frederick 
]\Iatthaei,  Professor  at  Moscow,  published  at  Riga  in  octavo,  a 


HISTORY   OF   THE    PRINTED   TEXT.  129 

new  edition  accompanied  by  the  Vulgate,  in  twelve  parts  or 
volumes,  commencing  with  the  Catholic  epistles,  and  ending 
with  Matthew's  gospel.  His  text  approaches  the  common  one, 
being  chiefly  derived  from  MSS.  in  the  libraries  of  Moscow, 
which  he  collated  for  the  first  time.  The  edition  contains 
many  critical  remarks,  excursus,  Greek  scholia  before  unpub- 
lished, and  copper  plates  representing  the  characters  of  his 
Greek  MSS.  The  collection  of  various  readings  is  taken  from 
nearly  a  hundred  Moscow  MSS.  which  he  generally  collated 
throughout.  It  is  tiaie  that  some  contain  a  small  part  of  the 
New  Testament,  some  mere  fragments,  very  few  the  whole ; 
but  several  of  them  are  ancient  and  valuable,  such  as  V.  which 
belongs  to  the  eighth  century.  The  edHor  avowed  himself  an 
opponent  of  the  recension-theory,  a  despiser  of  the  ancient 
MSS.  especially  the  cod.  Cambridge  (D.),  and  of  quotations  in 
the  fathers.  He  exhibited  undue  predilection  for  his  junior 
codices,  all  belonging  to  the  Constantinopolitan  family,  and 
spoke  in  an  unjustifiable  tone  of  severity  respecting  Griesbach 
and  others.  His  chief  merit,  therefore,  lies  in  his  having 
collated  many  new  MSS,  with  great  care,  thus  augmenting 
the  materials  available  in  the  preparation  of  a  correct  text. 
Michaelis  says,  that  when  he  began  the  work,  he  was  at  least 
an  age  behind  the  rest  of  Germany  in  the  knowledge  of  sacred 
criticism. 

After  Matthaei's  return  to  Germany  he  prepared  and  pub- 
lished a  second  edition  in  three  volumes  8vo,  vol.  i.  Wittem- 
berg  1803;  vol.  ii.  Curiae  Variscorum  1804;  and  vol.  iii. 
Ronneburgi  1807.  Here  the  various  readings  are  placed  at 
the  foot  of  the  page,  and  the  critical  annotations  at  the  end  of 
each  volume.  In  addition  to  his  collations  of  the  Moscow 
codices,  several  in  Germany  were  examined  previously  to  this 
edition,  making  the  entire  number  collated  by  him  103.  Tis- 
chendorf  enumerates  nearly  all  the  places  in  which  Matthaei 

VOL.  II.  K 


130  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

changed  the  text  as  it  appears  in  this  edition,  contrary  to  the 
Elzevirs,  Knapp,  and  Scholz.* 

Before  the  completion  of  Matthaei's  first  edition  appeared 
that  of  F.  C.  Alter  at  Vienna ;  vol.  i.  dated  1787,  vol.  ii.  1786, 
8vo.  The  text  is  that  of  the  Vienna  MS.  cod.  Lambecii  1, 
Griesbach  218.  With  this  text  he  collated  twentj-two  MSS. 
in  the  imperial  library,  giving  their  readings.  To  these  he 
added  extracts  from  the  Coptic,  Slavonic,  and  Latin  versions. 
A  gTcat  objection  to  the  edition  is  obvious ;  it  contains  the 
text  of  a  single  MS.,  and  it  too  not  of  gi-eat  antiquity  or  value. 
Surely  the  authentic  text  is  exhibited  by  no  one  copy  however 
ancient  or  perfect. 

In  1788  Professor  Birch  of  Copenhagen  enlarged  the  field 
of  criticism  by  his  edition  of  the  four  gospels  published  at 
Copenhagen,  folio  and  quarto.  The  text  is  simply  a  reprint  of 
Stephens'  third  edition,  and  is  therefore  of  no  use.  The  value 
of  the  work  consists  in  the  collection  of  various  readings  given. 
Extracts  were  taken  by  Birch  and  Moldenhauer  in  their  critical 
travels,  from  MSS.  at  Rome,  Vienna,  Venice,  Florence,  the 
Escurial,  as  well  as  the  library  at  Copenhagen ;  while  Adler 
who  travelled  with  them  on  the  same  errand  made  extracts 
from  the  Jerusalem- Syr iac,  and  the  other  Syriac  versions. 
Birch  himself  collated  all  the  Greek  MSS.  except  those  in  the 
Escurial,  which  were  examined  by  Moldenhauer ;  and  the 
entire  number  was  120.  He  was  also  the  first  editor  who 
collated  the  cod.  Vaticanus  except  in  Luke  and  John,  where 
he  used  a  collation  formerly  made  for  Bentley.  Here  lies 
the  chief  value  of  his  work.  The  publication  of  the  second 
volume  was  hindered  by  a  fire  in  the  royal  printing  house, 
which  destroyed  many  of  the  materials  and  put  a  stop  to  the 
work,  at  least  in  the  form  \t  first  assumed.  But  in  1798  Birch 
gave  to  the  world  his  collations  of  the  Acts  and  epistles  in  an 
octavo  volume ;  in  1800  in  the  same  form,  those  of  the  Apoca- 
*  See  his  first  Leipzig  edition,  Prolegomena,  p.  Ixviii.  et  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE    PRINTED   TEXT.  131 

lypse  ;  and  in  1801  the  various  readings  of  the  gospels  revised 
and  enlarged. 

Such  was  the  collection  of  new  materials  which  had  been 
made  since  Griesbach  published  his  first  edition.  In  prepar- 
ing his  second  and  principal  edition  he  proceeded  on  the  same 
principles  as  before,  selecting  the  most  important  and  valuable 
readings  which  he  could  find.  For  his  object  was  not  so 
much  to  supersede  the  labours  of  Wetstein,  nor  to  exhibit 
all  the  extracts  contained  in  that  expensive  edition  and  others 
of  less  compass,  but  to  furnish  a  convenient  and  portable  edi- 
tion provided  with  such  ciitical  apparatus  as  might  give  New 
Testament  students  an  adequate  idea  of  the  state  of  the  text. 
Besides  incorporating  into  the  new  edition  the  results  of  the 
laboui's  of  Matthaei,  Alter,  and  Birch,  he  supplied  a  great 
many  readings  from  Wetstein  and  others  not  given  before,  and 
noted  the  readings  in  which  Stephens'  third  edition  differs 
from  the  Elzevir.  He  also  amended  and  enlarged  the  extracts 
from  ancient  versions,  especially  from  the  two  Syriac  and  the 
Memphitic  version.  He  examined  again  the  copies  of  the  old 
Latin  version  published  by  Sabatier  and  Blanchini,  and  took 
many  new  readings  from  them.  He  procured  extracts  from 
Latin  MSS.  at  Emmeram,  Prague,  Toledo,  and  Vienna,  and 
added  the  readings  of  the  Vulgate  version  in  the  Sixtine  edition. 
He  procured  in  like  manner  a  new  collation  of  the  Armenian 
version,  a  large  number  of  readings  from  the  Slavonic,  and 
some  from  the  Bohemian.  The  Sahidic  and  Jerusalem- Syriac 
also  furnished  readings.  The  quotations  from  the  fathers  were 
materially  enlarged,  especially  from  Origen,  whose  works  he 
collated  very  carefully  more  than  once.  With  such  new  ma- 
terials, or  more  accurate  extracts  obtained  from  a  re-examina- 
tion of  materials  already  employed  by  him,  he  produced,  as 
indeed  his  aim  was,  not  so  much  a  new  edition  as  a  new  work. 
In  1796  the  first  volume  appeared  at  Halle  and  London,  con- 
taining the  four  gospels ;  and  in  1806  the  second  volume,  both 


132  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

in  octavo.  Very  valuable  prolegomena  are  prefixed,  giving  an 
ample  account  of  his  authorities,  rules  of  criticism,  &c. ;  and  at 
the  end  of  the  last  volume  is  a  diatribe  on  1  John  v.  7.  The 
work  was  reprinted  at  London  in  1809, 1810,  and  again  in  1818. 
With  regard  to  the  text  formed  by  Griesbach,  he  has 
carefully  marked  by  means  of  a  smaller  Greek  character  all 
that  he  has  adopted  in  place  of  what  is  in  the  received  text. 
He  has  also  employed  marks  to  indicate  his  opinion  of  the 
degrees  of  probability  of  a  reading,  or  the  contrary.  In  the 
inner  margin  are  put  all  the  readings  of  the  commonly  received 
text  whicli  he  has  rejected,  and  various  others  worthy  of  atten- 
tion. Beneath  the  text,  under  the  space  called  the  inner 
margin,  are  the  authorities  for  the  various  readings.  The 
accuracy,  sound  judgment,  good  taste,  and  critical  ability  of 
Griesbach  are  everywhere  conspicuous.  In  these  respects  he 
excels  all  his  predecessors.  Greater  reliance  can  be  placed  on 
his  references  and  extracts  than  on  any  that  had  before  appeared, 
though  not  a  few  mistakes  have  been  since  discovered  in  them, 
as  might  have  been  expected.  We  need  hardly  say  that  the 
volumes  are  indispensable  to  every  critic,  were  it  only  for  the 
learned  prolegomena.  Beautifally  does  Hug,  no  mean  judge, 
say,  "  with  this  work  he  adorned  the  evening  of  a  laborious 
and  praiseworthy  life,  and  in  it  left  behind  him  an  honourable 
memorial,  which  may  perhaps  be  surpassed  in  respect  to  the 
critical  materials  it  contains,  but  hardly  in  regard  to  delicate 
and  accurate  criticism."  The  text  of  this  edition  was  printed 
in  a  splendid  edition  4  vols,  folio  at  Leipzig  1803-1807,  with- 
out a  critical  apparatus,  and  only  a  few  select  readings.  In 
1805  Griesbach  also  published  a  manual  edition,  with  a  selec- 
tion of  readings  from  his  larger,  at  Leipzig,  in  two  parts,  making 
one  volume  octavo,  which  was  reprinted  very  inaccurately  in 
1825.  The  text  of  this  manual  edition  does  not  always  agree 
with  the  other.  His  opinion  of  some  places  differed  at  diffe- 
rent times. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT.  133 

New  materials  having  accumulated,  a  third  edition  was 
undertaken  by  Schulz  of  Breslau,  and  the  first  volume,  contain- 
ing the  prolegomena  and  four  gospels,  published  at  Berlin 
1827  8vo.  The  second  volume  did  not  appear.  This  edition 
contains  various  readings  from  nearly  twenty  new  sources, 
many  corrections  of  Griesbach's  references  and  citations,  be- 
sides several  other  improvements,  which  are  all  specified  in  a 
preface.  The  chief  things  which  the  editor  did  were,  that  he 
examined  again  the  Alexandrine  MS.  edited  by  Woide,  the 
Cambridge  MS.  edited  by  Kipling,  and  the  Latin  copies  edited 
by  Sabatier  and  Blanchini.  To  these  he  added  a  collation  of 
the  Vat.  cod.  B.  made  for  Bentley,  printed  in  the  appendix  to 
Woide's  edition  of  the  Alexandrine  MS.,  and  which  frequently 
differs  from  Birch's.  He  also  used  Barrett's  fac-simile  of  the 
Dublin  MS.  of  Matthew's  gospel,  the  collation  of  K.  or  the  cod. 
Cyprius  by  Scliolz,  and  extracts  from  various  Paris  MSS. 
given  by  Scholz  in  his  Biblico-critical  travels.  He  had  also  a 
Berlin  MS.  of  the  four  gospels  collated  and  described  by  Pap- 
pelbaum,  and  the  readings  of  several  MSS.  (237,  238)  belong- 
ing to  Birch,  relating  to  the  gospels,  which  were  not  published 
till  1801.  In  addition  to  these,  he  gave  the  more  remarkable 
readings  of  the  codex  Rehdigeranus,  containing  the  Latin  ante- 
Hieronymian  version  of  the  four  gospels.  He  also  examined 
the  Gothic  version  as  edited  by  Zahn  in  1805,  and  the  new 
readings  contained  in  the  fragments  of  it  published  by  Angelo 
Mai,  fragments  of  the  Sahidic  version  from  Oxford  MSS.  pub- 
lished in  the  appendix  to  Woide's  codex  Alexandrinus,  and 
the  fragments  of  the  Bashmuric  version  published  by  Engel- 
breth.  He  had  also  a  copy  of  Kiister's  Mill  deposited  in  the 
Orphan  House  at  Halle,  containing  many  MS.  notes  relating 
to  the  readings  of  the  Syriac,  Arabic,  Persian,  and  Ethiopic 
versions.  He  gave  besides  the  more  remarkable  readings  from 
two  MSS.  collated  by  Dermout,  viz.  245  or  Gronovi  131  of 
the  four  gospels,  246  or  the  Meermann,  containing  the  gospels, 


134  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Acts,  epistles  of  James,  Peter,  1  John,  with  a  fragment  of  tliat 
to  the  Romans.  He  says  that  he  had  also  continually  before 
him  the  editions  of  Wetstein,  Bengel,  Stephens,  Mill,  Birch, 
both  of  Matthaei,  Knapp's,  and  Griesbach's  own  Leipzig  one, 
exhibiting  that  form  and  condition  of  the  text  which  Gries- 
bach's maturest  judgment  thought  to  be  just.  More  than 
eighteen  pages  of  closely  printed  addenda  and  corrigenda  are 
put  at  the  end  of  the  volume,  consisting  chiefly  of  Dermout's 
collations  which  did  not  arrive  in  time  to  be  inserted  in  their 
places.  It  will  be  seen  therefore,  that  the  additions  are 
numerous,  most  of  them  being  improvements.  Before  leaving 
Griesbach's  edition  we  may  state  the  leading  objection  to  it, 
viz.  that  the  authorities  given  are  usually  for  deviations  from 
the  common  text,  and  not  for  the  text  itself. 

A  great  many  minor  editions  have  been  mainly  derived 
from  that  of  Griesbach,  their  editors  following  the  text  of  this 
distinguished  critic  with  more  or  less  closeness  according  to 
their  individual  judgment.  It  is  unnecessary  however  to 
dwell  upon  them,  as  they  did  not  advance  the  criticism  of  the 
New  Testament  by  the  addition  of  any  important  materials. 
Such  are  the  editions  of  Knapp  (1797-1840,  five  editions), 
Tittmann,  Vater,  Schott,  &c. 

For  many  years  previously  to  the  appearance  of  his  large 
critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  Dr.  J.  Martin  Augustus 
Scholz,  one  of  the  Roman  Catholic  professors  at  Bonn,  had 
been  making  extensive  preparations  for  it.  In  1820  he  pub- 
lished his  "  Curae  Criticae  in  historiam  textus  Evangeliorum 
commentationibus  duabus  exhibitae,"  Heidelberg,  4to,  contain- 
ing the  result  of  a  collation  of  forty-eight  MSS.  in  the  royal 
library  at  Paris,  nine  of  which  had  never  been  collated  before, 
and  of  which  he  collated  seventeen  throughout.  In  1 823  appeared 
his  '^  Biblische-Kritische  Reise  in  Frankreich,  der  Schweitz, 
Italicn,  Palaestina,  und  im  Archipel,  u.s.w."  Leipzig,  8vo,  con- 
taining a  description  of  MSS.  which  he  had  examined  in  his 


HISTORY   OF   THE    PRINTED   TEXT.  135 

travels,  and  the  most  valuable  various  readings  they  contain. 
From  this  time  he  was  still  employed  in  gathering  and  prepar- 
ing materials  till  at  length  the  first  volume  appeared  in  1830 
4to,  Leipzig,  containing  the  four  gospels.  The  second  volume 
was  published  in  1836,  completing  the  work.  More  than 
twelve  years  of  incessant  activity  were  spent  by  the  editor  in 
amassing  materials  for  his  work.  He  says  in  the  preface  that 
he  visited  personally  public  and  private  libraries,  such  as  the 
royal  library  at  Paris,  that  of  Vienna,  of  Munich,  Landshut, 
Berlin,  Treves,  London  (the  British  Museum),  Geneva,  Turin, 
the  Ambrosian  at  Milan,  that  of  St.  Mark's  in  Venice,  Mute 
in  Sicily,  Parma,  three  in  Florence,  that  of  Bologna,  nine  in 
Rome  including  the  Vatican,  that  of  Naples,  and  those  of  the 
Greek  monasteries  at  Jerusalem,  St.  Saba,  and  the  isle  of 
Patmos,  collating  either  wholly  or  in  part  all  the  copies  of  the 
New  Testament  he  could  find  in  them,  Greek,  Latin,  Syriac, 
Arabic,  &c.  with  the  text  of  Griesbach's  edition.  He  also 
re-examined  ancient  versions,  and  the  passages  cited  in  the 
acts  of  Councils  and  works  of  the  fathers.  In  addition  to  all 
this  he  used  the  readings  which  others  had  extracted  from  the 
fathers  and  versions,  and  the  readings  of  the  MSS.  which  others 
had  already  made  public,  or  obligingly  communicated  to  him. 
Besides  the  new  readings,  he  states  that  he  has  retained  such 
as  appeared  certain,  and  the  best  of  the  collections  of  Mill, 
Wetstein,  Alter,  Matthaei,  Birch,  and  Griesbach.  The  prole- 
gomena prefixed  to  the  first  volume  consist  of  172  pages,  con- 
taining a  history  of  the  preservation  of  the  New  Testament 
books  and  their  text,  an  exposition  of  his  system  of  classifica- 
tion, a  description  of  the  codices,  versions,  fathers,  and  acts  of 
Councils  used  by  him  as  authorities,  and  some  other  particulars. 
The  text  is  accompanied  in  the  inner  margin  with  the  general 
readings  characteristic  of  the  two  families  into  which  he  divides 
all  the  ancient  witnesses,  and  those  of  the  received  text.  Below 
it  arc  the  various  readings  with  their  authorities.      To  the 


136  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

second  volume  are  prefixed  63  pages  of  prolegomena,  contain- 
ing a  description  of  the  MSS.  relating  to  that  part  of  the  work, 
with  addenda.  The  whole  number  of  MSS.  described  and 
used  is  674,  of  which  343  had  been  collated  by  others,  so  that 
331  were  first  collated  by  Schok  himself,  i.e.  210  of  parts  of 
the  New  Testament  and  121  evangelistaria.  His  revised  text 
comes  nearer  the  received  one  than  Griesbach's — a  fact  arising 
from  his  preference  of  the  Constantinopolitan  to  the  Alexan- 
drine recension.  Whatever  opinion  may  be  formed  of  his  text 
compared  with  that  of  his  distinguished  predecessor,  it  is  cer- 
tainly an  improvement  on  the  textus  receptus.  The  value  of  it 
depends  on  the  relative  value  assigned  to  the  two  classes  into 
which  Scholz  divides  the  ancient  documents.  Such  as  prefer 
the  readings  of  the  most  ancient  MSS.  will  not  estimate  it 
highly ;  while  those  who  are  partial  to  the  junior  copies  will 
attach  more  importance  to  it. 

In  judging  of  the  merits  of  this  edition  the  text  can  hardly 
attract  much  consideration  or  claim  any  special  authority. 
This  arises  not  so  much  from  his  recension  theory,  as  from  the 
application  of  the  critical  principles  advocated.  The  theory  is 
one  thing,  the  application  a  very  different  one.  His  classification 
may  be  right,  his  ideas  of  the  Asiatic  readings  coiTect,  while 
the  practical  result  at  which  the  critic  arrives  may  not  fairly 
represent  his  ideas.  A  great  many  things  may  vitiate  the 
conclusions  fairly  deducible  from  a  good  theory.  Many  qua- 
lities may  be  wanting  to  him  by  whom  the  operation  is  con- 
ducted. There  are  internal  considerations  which  contribute 
largely  to  the  formation  of  a  pure  text.  It  is  not  external 
evidence  hy  itself  ih-ni  should  be  considered,  but  also  the  nature 
of  the  context,  the  intrinsic  fitness  of  the  readings  to  certain 
places,  and  a  great  variety  of  causes  and  influences  which  no 
rules  can  define,  and  no  diplomatic  criticism  control  or  command. 
Sagacity,  tact,  skill,  a  delicate  and  nice  perception  of  minute 
adaptations,  acuteness,  sound  judgment,  are  required  for  the 


HISTORY    OF  THE   PRINTED   TEXT.  137 

successful  application  ot  any  theory  of  textual  criticism.  In 
these  qualifications  Scholz  is  much  inferior  to  Griesbach. 
Hence  he  has  failed  in  producing  a  good  text  from  his  multi- 
farious materials.  He  has  not  even  been  consistent  with  his 
own  principles.  They  are  not  carried  fully  and  fairly  through- 
out the  work.  He  might  have  exhibited  a  far  better  text  with 
the  same  view  of  recensions,  had  he  possessed  the  critical  per- 
ception and  delicate  skill  of  his  great  predecessor. 

If  then  the  merit  of  the  editor  be  small  in  regard  to  the 
text  he  has  produced^  we  must  look  in  another  direction  for  the 
basis  of  his  reputation.  And  here  his  collations  of  so  many 
MSS.  before  unexamined,  are  his  chief  claim  to  the  gratitude 
of  every  scholar.  In  this  respect  he  has  accomplished  much  ; 
for  he  has  greatly  enlarged  the  materials  of  criticism.  In  the 
critical  apparatus  of  the  work  of  Scholz  lies  its  value.  And 
yet,  important  as  that  apparatus  is,  it  is  very  inaccurately 
printed.  His  collations  have  been  hasty  and  superficial. 
They  are  often  incorrect.  They  cannot  be  relied  on.  Their 
errors  are  very  numerous.  But  surely  rigid  accuracy  in 
references  and  extracts  belonging  to  a  critical  edition,  is  the 
very  highest  quality  it  can  possess.  It  is  of  primary  impor- 
tance. And  it  is  very  remarkable,  that  Scholz  has  sometimes 
implicitly  copied  Griesbach's  words,  even  when  they  lead  to  a 
different  result  from  his  own.  In  proof  of  this,  we  refer  the 
reader  to  the  note  on  1  Timothy  iii.  16.  Even  Griesbach's 
typographical  errors  are  given  in  the  text,  and  then  copies 
quoted  in  the  notes  to  support  the  variations!  Thus  in 
Apocalypse  xxi.  2  xsxoff/zsi/Tii/,  which  Griesbach  has  in  the 
text  by  a  mere  typographical  mistake,  is  given  by  Scholz 
also,  and  in  favour  of  KSKogfiri/Mvriv  is  cited  cod.  2.  In  Apoca- 
lypse XV.  2  he  gives  sxcvrss  in  the  text,  and  quotes  cod.  13  for 
sp^oi/ras.  In  Phil.  11  he  has  in  the  text  wvi  ds  eoi  xai  s'o^^yjgrov, 
omitting  s/j.oi  after  xa/,  and  quotes  44, 174,  219  al.  In  Eph.  vi.  1 
he  has  jj/awv  after  roTg  yovium,  citing  for  it  I.  44,  219  al.,  wliereas 


138  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

in  Griesbach  it  is  a  mere  typographical  error  for  i/^wv.  In 
2  Peter  i.  15,  -/.al  is  omitted  for  the  same  reason  before  sTidaTon, 
and  G.  38,  78,  80,  137,  quoted  for  the  omission.  Haste, 
negligence,  superficiality,  are  apparent  on  almost  every  page ; 
and  none  who  uses  the  edition  can  fail  to  see  them.  In  short, 
the  work  wants  a  thorough  sifting  and  correction,  before  it  can 
be  employed  with  facility,  ease,  and  certainty. 

After  these  remarks,  our  readers  will  not  be  surprised  to 
learn  that  Scholz's  edition  never  gained  the  confidence  ot 
German  critics ;  and  that  a  general  scepticism  lias  always 
prevailed  with  respect  to  his  qualifications  for  the  great  task. 
It  could  not  supersede  Griesbach's  in  public  estimation.  Nor 
will  it  do  so  even  in  this  country.  Welcomed  as  it  was  with 
avidity,  the  few  biblical  scholars  in  Great  Britain  whose 
opinions  ougJit  to  guide  the  many,  never  praised  or  exalted  it 
as  the  work  which  was  destined  to  take  the  place  of  all  former 
editions.  It  has  its  importance  to  the  critic ;  but  that  impor- 
tance is  by  no  means  commensm-ate  with  the  laborious  pre- 
parations, the  great  bulk,  and  the  high  price  of  the  work.  As 
a  whole  it  occupies  an  inferior  place,  not  the  high  rank  univer- 
sally conceded  to  Wetstein's  and  Griesbach's,  though  time  has 
unavoidably  diminished  the  value  even  of  their  labours. 

Before  leaving  Scholz,  it  is  but  fair  to  state  that  he  has 
been  most  unwaiTantably  decried  and  blamed  for  having  for- 
merly proposed  a  theory  of  recensions  different  from  that  which 
he  propounds  in  the  prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament.  In  his  first  publication,  whose  title  we  gave  before, 
he  thought  he  had  perceived  a  fivefold  classification,  into  which 
the  materials  of  criticism  might  be  distributed.  This  however 
he  abandoned  for  a  twofold  one.  He  simply  changed  his 
views  on  the  subject.  For  such  alteration  he  is  rather  to  be 
commended  than  blamed.  He  had  a  perfect  right  to  adopt 
another  opinion,  if  he  saw  he  was  wrong.  Nor  should  his 
former  view  induce  any  one  to  prejudge  his  later  one ;  or  to 


HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT.  139 

think  it  erroneous  because  it  proceeds  trom  a  man  who  had 
altered  his  sentiments. 

In  1831  a  small  edition  of  unpretending  appearance  ap- 
peared at  Berlin,  in  duodecimo,  edited  by  Charles  Lachmann. 
There  are  also  copies  with  London  on  the  title  page.  There 
is  no  preface,  but  at  the  end  are  43  pages  exhibiting  the 
readings  of  the  commonly  received  text  where  it  differs  from 
this  one.  A  few  lines  at  the  commencement  of  these  readings 
contain  a  reference  to  the  Studien  und  Kritihen  for  1830,  pp. 
817-845,  for  an  account  of  the  edition,  and  a  statement  that  the 
editor  has  in  no  case  followed  his  own  judgment,  but  the  usage 
of  the  most  ancient  oriental  churches.  The  volume  is  neatly 
and  accurately  printed,  the  verses  being  numbered  by  small 
letters  in  the  middle  of  the  lines. 

Words  are  occasionally  bracketed  in  the  text,  to  express 
doubts  as  to  their  authenticity.  Others  are  placed  at  the 
bottom  of  the  page  when  the  evidence  is  considered  to  be 
balanced  between  them  and  those  of  the  text. 

In  1842  the  first  volume  of  a  large  edition  appeared  from 
the  same  scholar  at  Berlin,  in  octavo,  with  the  title  "  Testa- 
mentum  Novum  Graece  et  Latine — Carolus  Lachmannus  recen- 
suit  Philippus  Buttmannus  Ph.  F.  Graece  lectionis  auctoritates 
apposuit."  The  second  volume,  containing  from  the  Acts  to  the 
Revelation,  was  not  published  till  1850.  In  this  edition  as  in 
the  former,  words  are  occasionally  bracketed  in  the  text ;  and 
readings  given  in  the  inner  margin,  for  the  same  reasons.  The 
deviations  of  the  received  text  are  among  the  critical  authorities 
which  Buttmann  added.  The  authorities  for  the  various  read- 
ings are  given  under  the  text ;  and  at  the  foot  of  the  page  stands 
the  Vulgate,  in  a  text  chiefly  formed  from  two  ancient  documents. 
Both  editions,  especially  the  smaller  one,  attracted  much  notice 
in  Germany,  and  notwithstanding  many  adverse  opinions  and 
objections  stated  both  to  the  editor's  principles  and  text,  they 
attained  a  degree  of  authority  unknown  to  Schok's. 


140  '"  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

The  plan  on  which  Lachmann  proceeded  was  that  proposed 
"by  Bentley,  viz.  to  follow  the  authority  of  ancient  MSS.  abso- 
lutely. He  has  not  however  conformed  altogether  to  Bentley's 
principle.  His  object  was  to  present  the  text  which  was  most 
general  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  from  oriental  sources 
alone ;  meaning  by  that  term  what  others  have  usually  termed 
Alexandrine  (and  western). 

His  only  MSS.  are  A.  the  codex  Alexandrinus ;  B.  the 
Vatican ;  C.  the  cod.  Ephraemi ;  D.  the  cod.  Cantab,  in  the 
Gospels  and  Acts ;  a  the  cod.  Claromontanus  in  Paul's  epistles  ; 
E.  cod.  Laudianus  in  the  Acts ;  G.  cod.  Boernerianus  of  Paul's 
epistles  ;  H.  the  Coislin  fragments  of  Paul's  epistles ;  P.  and  Q. 
the  Wolfenblittel  fragments  of  the  gospels  ;  T.  Borgian  Greek 
and  Saliidic  of  John's  gospel ;  Z.  the  Dublin  MS.  of  Matthew's 
gospel ;  a  the  Vercelli  Latin  MS.  of  the  gospels,  b  the  Verona 
MS. ;  c  the  Colbert  MS. ;  d  the  Cambridge  of  the  gospels, 
Acts,  and  3  John ;  e  the  Laudian  of  the  Acts ;  f  the  Clermont 
of  Paul's  epistles ;  ff  the  St.  Germain  of  Paul's  epistles  ;  g  the 
Boernerian  of  the  same ;  h  Primasius  on  the  Apocalypse ;  v 
the  Vulgate  Hieronymian  version  ;  ?  stands  for  the  Elzevir 
text  of  1624.  For  the  Vulgate  as  edited  by  him  he  takes 
principally  two  MSS.,  viz.  the  Fulda  one  F.  and  the  cod. 
Laurentianus  or  Amiatinus  L. ;  while  V.  denotes  the  former  as 
corrected  by  Victor  bishop  of  Capua.  Other  MSS.  of  the 
Vulgate  were  used  by  him,  which  he  marks  by  al.  i.  e.  alii 
praeter  Fuldensem  et  Amiatinum. 

As  he  does  not  come  down  lower  than  the  fourth  century, 
the  only  fathers  cited  are  Irenaeus,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Hilary 
bishop  of  Poictiers  and  Lucifer  bishop  of  Cagliari, 

Following  these  authorities  and  rejecting  all  others,  he 
has  produced  a  peculiar  text  considerably  different  from 
that  presented  in  any  other  edition.  The  two  volumes  are 
printed  in  a  good  distinct  type,  but  the  quality  of  the  paper  is 
inferior. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT.  141 

In  the  prefaces  prefixed  to  each,  the  editor  gives  an  account 
of  the  nature  of  his  work  and  the  sources  he  has  used,  accom- 
panied with  remarks  on  various  reviewers,  objectors,  and  for- 
mer editors,  expressed  with  far  too  great  asperity. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  text  of  the  large  edition 
does  not  always  agree  with  that  of  the  small  one.  We  have 
observed  occasional  differences  between  them. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  merits  of  this  second  work  of 
Lachmann  are  veiy  considerable.  His  plan  is  clear,  definite, 
palpable.  He  draws  a  line  between  ancient  and  modern 
authorities  and  usually  adheres  to  it.  And  if  the  work  be 
meant  as  a  contribution  to  the  procurement  of  the  authentic  and 
original  text,  not  the  very  best  representation  of  that  text  which 
can  be  given,  it  must  be  highly  valued.  In  the  former  light 
it  is  important ;  in  the  latter  it  is  defective.  We  believe  that 
Lachmann  himself  looked  at  it  in  the  latter  point  of  view.  He 
has  thus  explained  his  object  in  the  Studien  unci  Kritihen  for 
1830  (817-845),  and  more  briefly  in  the  preface  to  the  first 
volume,  where  he  freely  allows  that  his  text  contains  erroneous 
readings,  and  even  gives  examples  of  such.*  His  design  was 
to  give  the  best  historically  attested  readings  of  the  first  four 
centuries  from  oriental  sources — a  design  which  he  endeavours 
to  carry  out  most  consistently,  even  to  the  exhibition  of  widely 
spread  mistakes  in  the  text.  He  professes  to  follow  authority 
alone  in  presenting  the  most  ancient  form  of  the  text,  admitting 
at  the  same  time  that  emendation  is  necessary  in  order  to  elicit 
in  every  case  the  readings  which  proceeded  from  the  sacred 
wi'iters ;  but  modestly  refraining  from  such  emendation  because 
he  was  not  a  theologian.  Had  this  his  true  object  been  per- 
ceived, it  would  have  saved  a  great  deal  of  misapprehension  on 
the  part  of  his  censors,  who  have  written  against  him  through 
ignorance.  It  would  have  shortened,  for  example,  the  critique 
of  Scrivener,  who  labours  under  much  mistake,  and  prevented 
*  Studien  und  Kritiken  p.  839,  et  seq. 


142  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

him  from  affirming,  what  is  not  true,  that  Lachmann  by  means 
of  his  slender  apparatus  of  critical  materials,  "  hopes  to  super- 
sede the  labours  of  all  his  predecessors,  and  to  establish  on  a 
firm  foundation  a  pure  and  settled  text  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment."* Hence  the  edition  does  not  satisfy  the  wants  of 
general  readers  and  students.  Other  editions  are  necessary. 
For  it  must  be  apparent,  that  the  line  drawn  by  the  learned 
writer  between  ancient  and  modern  authorities  is  an  arbitraiy 
one.  Why  does  he  not  come  down  lower  than  the  fourth  cen- 
tury ?  Why  does  he  confine  himself  to  so  few  witnesses,  and 
those  belonging  to  one  class  ?  Why  does  he  disregard  so  much 
the  internal  goodness  of  readings,  and  all  those  considerations 
arising  out  of  the  text  itself,  which  modify  and  regulate  the 
external  evidence  in  its  various  applications  ?  Has  he  not  pro- 
ceeded in  a  mechanical  way,  looking  solely  at  his  testimonies, 
few  and  one-sided  as  they  are  ?  Is  he  not  obliged  by  his  plan 
to  place  here  and  there  readings  in  his  text  for  which  the  evi- 
dence is  very  slender  ?  One  or  two  authorities  are  all  that  are 
available  in  certain  cases.  Thus  from  the  fourth  to  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  2  Corinthians,  the  text  given  rests  on  cod.  B.  alone; 
and  from  epistle  to  Hebrews  ix.  14  to  the  end,  the  text  rests  on 
A.  alone.  Such  support  is  far  too  slight.  In  one  instance  at 
least,  De  Wette  thinks  that  his  plan  gives  a  senseless  reading. 
See  Matt.  xxi.  28-31.  But  Lachmann  denies  the  allegation. 
His  reply  may  be  seen  in  vol.  ii.  pp.  5,  6  of  the  preface. 
Tregelles  also  justifies  the  reading  in  opposition  to  De  Wette.f 
The  mere  mistakes  also  of  the  few  ancient  copies  on  which  he 
relies,  are  given  in  his  text,  such  as  rnv  without  ayai:7\v  in 
Ephes,  i.  15,  and  u  iMnv  for  ^  i^n^  in  Heb.  vi.  14.  Nor  is  it  so 
certain  as  he  affirms  it  to  be,  that  his  principle  excludes  all  sub- 
jectiveness  and  caprice.  If  so,  why  is  the  text  of  the  larger 
edition  different  in  several  instances  from  that  of  tlie  smaller  ? 

*  Supplement  to  the  authorised  English  version,  introduction,  p.  26. 
t  Kitto's  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  Jan.  1850,  p.  55,  et  seq. 


HISTORY  OF  THK  PRINTED  TEXT.  143 

The  defects  of  Lachmann's  edition  consist  in  the  imperfect 
collations  of  MSS.  on  which  he  sometimes  relied  when  he 
might  have  availed  himself  of  much  better  ones.  These  have 
been  pointed  out  by  Tischendorf.  Besides,  he  has  not  always 
been  consistent  in  following  out  his  own  principles.  Tischen- 
dorf has  given  a  number  of  instances  where  his  text  is  in- 
correct.* 

Before  the  appearance  of  the  first  volume  of  Lachmann's 
large  edition,  that  of  Tischendorf  had  been  published  at 
Leipzig,  1841,  square  12mo,  containing  a  selected  text,  and  tlie 
most  important  readings,  with  the  variations  found  in  the  lead- 
ing critical  editions.  The  text  was  based  mainly  on  ancient 
Alexandrine  (and  western)  authorities,  being  formed  after  those 
of  Griesbach  and  Lachmann,  the  latter  in  particular.  The  in- 
fluence which  Lachmann's  authority  had  upon  the  editor  is 
apparent.  It  was  a  useful  manual  on  the  whole ;  but  as  it  is 
now  superseded  by  another,  we  forbear  to  make  farther  remarks 
on  it.  The  prolegomena  are  now  the  only  part  of  it  worth 
having,  containing,  (I.)  a  copious  discussion  of  recensions,  with 
special  reference  to  Scholz's  theory  ;  (II.)  the  plan  pursued  in 
preparing  the  edition  ;  (III.)  the  editions  collated  with  the  text 
of  his  own ;  (IV.)  an  index  of  the  critical  aids,  MSS.  versions, 
fathers,  and  ecclesiastical  writers. 

Tischendorf  also  published  three  editions  at  Paris  in  1842, 
two  dedicated  to  Archbishop  Affre,  and  one  to  M.  Guizot. 
One  has  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  a  parallel  column,  and  the  Greek 
text  conformed  as  often  as  MS.  authorities  would  allow  to  the 
Clementine  Latin.  Another  has  the  same  Greek  text  without 
the  Latin  and  Avithout  the  various  readings  at  the  end.  The 
third,  or  Protestant  one,  has  a  text  nearly  the  same  with  the 
Leipzig  of  1841,  without  a  critical  apparatus,  but  with  the 
variations  of  the  editions  of  Stephens,  Elzevir,  and  Griesbacli 
at  the  end. 

*  Prolegomena  in  editiouem  secundam  Lipsieusem,  pp.  45,  4fi. 


144  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

In  the  meantime,  the  critical  materials  had  been  accumulat- 
ing. The  year  before  the  publication  of  Lachmann's  smaller 
edition  Rinck  had  made  known  the  results  of  a  careful  collation 
of  seven  MSS.  in  the  library  of  St.  Mark's  at  Venice.  Reiche 
had  published  extracts  from  several  Paris  MSS.  in  1847. 
E-ettig  had  published  a  beautifully  lithographed  copy  of  the 
cod.  Sangallensis  ;  and  above  all  Tischendorf  himself  had  been 
incessant  in  his  collation  and  publication  of  MSS.  preserved  in 
various  countries.  He  had  published  the  text  of  C.  or  the 
codex  Ephraemi,  in  1843  ;  and  "  Monumenta  sacra  inedita,"  in 
1846,  containing  the  text  of  nine  MSS.  including  L.  of  the 
gospels,  with  the  purple  fragments  I.  N,  r,,  the  Barberini  frag- 
ment Y.  the  Paris  fragment  W.  and  others.  Of  Latin  MSS. 
he  published  the  Evangelium  Palatinum  in  1847,  a  copy  of 
the  gospels  at  Vienna  on  purple  vellum ;  and  the  codex  Amia- 
tinus,  far  more  correctly  than  Fleck,  in  1850.  Accordingly,  a 
second  and  much  improved  edition  appeared  at  Leipzig  in 
1849,  in  one  vol.  12mo,  to  which  are  prefixed  two  prefaces, 
and  96  pages  of  prolegomena.  The  text  of  this  edition  is 
very  much  superior  to  that  of  1841,  and  differs  considerably 
from  Lachmann's,  though  based  mainly  on  ancient  authorities. 
It  is  also  in  every  way  more  correctly  printed,  though  by  no 
means  faultless,  for  even  the  critic's  own  MS.  collations  are  not 
faithfully  copied  in  the  printed  text.  On  the  whole,  it  is  the 
best  critical  edition  which  has  been  published  for  such  as  de- 
sire to  have  hut  one.  It  is  both  portable  and  cheap.  There 
are  indications  in  the  text  here  and  there  of  rash  and  hasty 
judgment.  Perhaps  the  learned  editor  was  not  controlled 
throughout  by  very  definite  or  fixed  principles  on  which  to  form 
his  text ;  for  though  he  has  always  had  regard  to  external  autho- 
rity, he  has  not  been  able  in  all  instances  to  suppress  an  arbi- 
trary and  subjective  tendency  unfavourable  to  calm  impartiality.* 

*  See  an  able  review  of  it  by  Tregelles,  in  Kitto's  Journal  of  Sacred 
Literature  for  October  1849  and  January  185U. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT.  145 

In  1846  appeared  at  Hamburgh  a  very  small  volume 
(sq^uare  18mo)  containing  the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  chieflj 
after  the  text  of  the  Vatican  MS.,  by  Ecluardus  de  Muralto. 
This  was  followed  two  years  after  by  a  larger  edition,  with 
prolegomena  extending  to  115  pages.  The  prolegomena  treat 
of  the  collations  of  the  early  fathers,  the  use  of  the  versions, 
the  Vatican  MS.  (B),  other  MSS.,  of  which  collations  are 
given,  a  table  of  all  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  either 
cited  or  referred  to  by  the  earlier  fathers,  with  references  to  the 
most  ancient  Slavonic  Evangelistarium,  &c.  After  the  text  are 
the  various  readings  of  certain  MSS.,  the  Syriac  version,  the 
Slavonic,  &c.,  the  whole  ending  with  a  small  lexicon  of  gram- 
matical and  orthographical  forms  found  in  many  ancient  MSS. 

As  to  the  text  itself  it  merely  professes  to  be  that  of  the 
Vatican  MS.,  not  a  critical  text.  Marks  of  various  kinds, 
such  as  brackets,  parenthetic  signs,  &c.,  are  employed  where 
other  leading  MSS.  exhibit  some  variation.  The  pastoral 
epistles,  and  end  of  that  to  the  Hebrews,  are  supplied  from 
H.  or  the  Coislin  MS.,  and  where  that  is  defective  from  cod. 
Passionei  (J).  The  Apocalypse  is  taken  from  B.  or  2066, 
formerly  Basilianus  105,  published  by  Tischendorf. 

According  to  the  editor's  own  account,  he  had  the  colla- 
tions of  B.  by  Bartolocci  and  Birch,  furnished  with  which  he 
was  allowed  three  days  to  examine  the  MS.  (perlustrandus)  in 
1844,  which  time  he  states  to  be  sufficient  to  remove  the 
differences  between  the  two  collations  by  ascertaining  the 
true  reading.  As  far  as  his  text  goes,  it  agrees  in  the  main 
with  Bartolocci's  collation.  Unfortunately,  however,  doubt 
rests  on  the  statement  whether  Von  Muralt  ever  used  the  MS. 
itself.  One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  text  published  is  by  no 
means  a  faithful  or  accurate  representation  of  that  in  the  IVIS. 
It  is  very  incorrect.  The  editor  did  not  employ  the  collation 
made  for  Bentley.  Hence  the  edition  is  all  but  worthless  to 
the  critic.     We  refer  to  a  critique  upon  it  by  Tiscliendorf  at 

VOL.    II.  L 


146  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

p.  47  of  his  preface,  where  it  is  handled  very  severely,  ''  opus 
est  incredibili  inscitia,  socordia,  perfidia." 

Such  is  a  brief  history  of  the  principal  labours  that  have 
been  expended  on  the  text  of  the  Greek  Testament,  with  the 
view  of  bringing  it  nearer  to  the  state  in  which  it  first  appeared. 
The  materials  have  gradually  accumulated  till  the  present  time. 
But  they  are  still  in  an  incomplete  state.  If  one  person  had  ap- 
plied himself  to  the  thorough  collation  of  a  really  valuable  MS., 
instead  of  amassing  a  heap  of  extracts  necessarily  imperfect  and 
often  inaccurate,  criticism  would  have  been  in  a  better  condition. 
The  thing  most  wanted  is  good  fac-similes  of  the  best  MSS., 
or  at  least  collations  of  them  which  can  be  relied  on  as  every 
where  accurate — collations  which  should  save  other  scholars 
the  trouble  of  re-examining  the  same  documents.  But  this 
is  the  work  of  time.  Every  year  is  doing  something  for  the 
purification  of  the  text.  Critical  editors  and  collators  appear, 
who,  amid  all  disadvantages,  pursue  their  arduous  task  of 
exploring  those  ancient  monuments  which  contain  the  text  of 
the  Christian  records.  Here  the  name  of  Tischendorf  is  con- 
spicuous, who  has  already  brought  to  light  many  valuable 
codices  and  fragments,  making  them  accessible  to  the  learned, 
and  is  still  ardent  in  the  same  work.  Others  might  be  named 
who  are  now  and  have  been  for  some  years  engaged  in  the  same 
pursuit,  the  fruits  of  whose  labours  will  ere  long,  we  trust,  appear. 
Dr.  S.  P.  Tregelles  is  one  of  them,  who  has  been  preparing  a 
large  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  for  many  years. 
We  look  for  the  completion  of  his  great  undertaking  with 
solicitude,  hope,  and  high  expectations,  knowing  that  he  unites 
in  himself  most  of  the  qualities  which  will  ensure  a  critical 
edition  worthy  of  comparison  with  any  of  the  continental  ones. 
We  believe  that  his  accuracy  in  making  collations  and  faith- 
fully recording  them  is  superior  to  that  evinced  by  any  of  the 
great  editors,  Mill,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  or  Tis- 
chendorf. 


HISTORY   OF   THE    PRINTED   TEXT.  147 

Having  thus  given  a  history  of  the  text  printed  as  well  as 
unprinted,  and  having  shewn  the  various  attempts  made  to 
restore  it  to  its  pristine  purity,  we  may  add  a  few  words  on 
the  general  result  obtained.  The  effect  of  it  has  been  to 
establish  the  genuineness  of  the  New  Testament  text  in  all 
important  particulars.  No  new  doctrines  have  been  elicited 
by  its  aid ;  nor  have  any  historical  facts  been  summoned  by 
it  from  their  obscurity.  All  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  Chris- 
tianity remain  unaffected.  Hence  the  question  arises,  of  what 
utility  has  it  been  to  the  world  ?  Why  have  all  this  labour 
and  industry  been  applied  ?  Have  all  the  researches  of  mo- 
dern criticism  been  wasted  ?  We  believe  they  have  not. 
They  have  proved  one  thing — that  in  the  records  of  inspira- 
tion there  is  no  material  corruption.  They  have  shewn  suc- 
cessfully that  during  the  lapse  of  many  centuries  the  text  ot 
Scripture  has  been  preserved  with  great  care ;  that  it  has  not 
been  extensively  tampered  with  by  daring  hands.  It  is  not 
very  different  from  what  it  was  1700  years  ago.  Critics  with 
all  their  research  have  not  been  able  to  shew  that  the  common 
text  varies  essentially  from  what  they  now  recommend  as 
coming  nearest  its  earliest  form.  It  is  substantially  the  same 
as  the  text  they  propose.  Thus  criticism  has  been  gradually 
building  a  foundation,  or  rather  proving  the  immovable  secu- 
rity of  a*  foundation  on  which  the  Christian  faith  may  safely 
rest.  It  has  taught  us  to  regard  the  Scriptures  as  they  now 
are  to  be  divine  in  their  origin.  We  may  boldly  challenge 
the  opponent  of  the  Bible  to  shew  that  the  book  has  been 
materially  corrupted.  Empowered  by  the  fruits  of  criticism, 
we  may  well  say  that  the  Scriptures  continue  essentially  the 
same  as  when  they  proceeded  from  the  writers  themselves. 
Hence  none  need  be  alarmed  when  he  hears  of  the  vast  collec- 
tion of  various  readings  accumulated  by  the  collators  of  MSS. 
and  critical  editors.  The  majority  are  of  a  trifling  kind,  re- 
sembling differences  in  the  collocation  of  words  and  synony- 


148  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

mous  expressions  which  writers  of  different  tastes  evince. 
Confiding  in  the  general  integrity  of  our  religious  records,  we 
can  look  upon  a  quarter  or  half  a  million  of  various  readings 
with  calmness,  since  they  are  so  unimportant  as  not  to  affect 
religious  belief.  We  can  thank  God  that  we  are  able  to  walk 
without  apprehension  over  the  sacred  field  he  has  given  us  to 
explore.  Our  faith  in  the  integrity  of  his  word  is  neither  a 
blind  nor  superstitious  feeling,  when  all  the  results  of  learning 
incontestably  shew  that  the  present  Scriptures  may  be  regarded 
as  uninjured  in  their  transmission  through  many  ages ;  and 
that  no  effort  of  infidelity  can  avail  to  demonstrate  their  sup- 
posititious character.  Let  the  illiterate  reader  of  the  New 
Testament  also  take  comfort  by  learning,  that  the  received 
text  to  which  he  is  accustomed  is  substantially  the  same  as 
that  which  men  of  the  greatest  learning,  the  most  unwearied 
research,  and  the  severest  studies  have  found  in  a  prodigious 
heap  of  documents.  Let  him  go  forward  with  a  heart  grateful 
to  the  God  of  salvation,  who  has  put  him  in  possession  of  the 
same  text  as  is  in  the  hands  of  the  great  biblical  editors 
whose  names  stand  out  in  the  literature  of  the  Scriptures. 
"  Of  the  various  readings  of  the  New  Testament,"  says  Mr. 
Norton,  "  nineteen  out  of  twenty,  at  least,  are  to  be  dismissed 
at  once  from  consideration,  not  on  account  of  their  intrinsic 
unimportance — that  is  a  separate  consideration — but  because 
they  are  found  in  so  few  authorities,  and  their  origin  is  so 
easily  explained,  that  no  critic  would  regard  them  as  having 
any  claim  to  be  inserted  in  the  text.  Of  those  which  remain 
a  very  great  majority  are  entirely  unimportant.  They  consist 
in  different  modes  of  spelling ;  in  different  tenses  of  the  same 
verb  or  different  cases  of  the  same  noun,  not  affecting  the 
essential  meaning  ;  in  the  use  of  the  singular  for  the  plural,  or 
the  plural  for  the  singular,  where  one  or  the  other  expression 
is  equally  suitable ;  in  the  insertion  or  omission  of  particles, 
such  as  aM  and  5s,  not  affecting  the  sense,  or  of  the  article  in 


HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT.  149 

cases  equally  unimportant ;  in  the  introduction  of  a  proper 
name,  where,  if  not  inserted,  the  personal  pronoun  is  to  be 
understood,  or  of  some  other  word  or  words  expressive  of  a 
sense  which  would  be  distinctly  implied  without  them ;  in 
the  addition  of  '  Jesus '  to  '  Christ,'  or  '  Christ '  to  '  Jesus ;' 
in  the  substitution  of  one  synonymous  or  equivalent  term  for 
another  ;  in  the  transposition  of  words,  leaving  their  significa- 
tion the  same ;  in  the  use  of  an  uncompounded  verb  or  of  the 
same  verb  compounded  Avith  a  preposition — the  latter  differing 
from  the  former  only  in  a  shade  of  meaning.  Such  various  read- 
ings, and  others  equally  unimportant,  compose  far  the  greater 
part  of  all,  concerning  which  there  may  be  or  has  been  a  ques- 
tion whether  they  are  to  be  admitted  into  the  text  or  not,  and 
it  is  therefore  obviously  of  no  consequence  in  which  way  the 
question  has  been  or  may  be  determined."* 

*  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  additional  notes,  pp.   38,  39 
(American  edition). 


CHAPTER  X. 


ANCIENT    VERSIONS. 

'THE  PESHITO. 

Having  completed  our  history  of  the  New  Testament  text^ 
we  proceed  to  describe  the  sources  whence  various  readings 
are  derived,  and  by  which  it  may  be  restored  to  its  original 
condition.  As  already  stated,  these  are  four,  viz.  ancient 
versions,  manuscripts,  quotations,  and  conjecture.  Let  us  con- 
sider the  first. 

Among  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Testament,  the  first 
place  is  due  to  the  old  Syriac  or  Peshito.  Allusion  has  been 
made  in  the  first  volume  to  the  name  and  age  of  this  version. 
But  in  regard  to  the  latter,  there  are  certain  circumstances 
belonging  to  the  New  Testament  part  which  deserve  to  be 
noticed. 

The  fact  that  the  version  wants  the  second  and  third 
epistles  of  John,  the  second  of  Peter,  that  of  Jude  and  the 
Apocalypse  has  been  employed  as  an  argument  in  favoui-  of 
its  antiquity.  The  translator  must  have  made  his  version,  it 
is  asserted,  either  before  these  books  were  written,  or  at  least 
before  they  were  acknowledged  in  Syria  as  of  divine  autho- 
rity. But  the  fact  of  its  wanting  these  portions  does  not 
necessarily  or  consistently  carry  it  up  to  the  close  of  the  first 
or  the  earlier  part  of  the  second  century.      Nor  do  the  other 


THE    PESHITO.  151 

arguments  that  have  been  adduced  by  Micliaelis*  and  Lau- 
rence f  render  this  high  antiquity  either  probable  or  certain. 
Bishop  Marsh  has  shewn  |  that  the  argannents  of  Michaelis  are 
invalid;   and  Laurence  has  failed  to  refute  his  statements. 
No  man  could  think,  as  ]\Iarsh  rightly  affirms,  of  ti-anslating 
the  Greek  Testament  before  its  several  parts  were  collected 
and  united  in  a  volume,  that  is,  before  the  canon  was  formed. 
But  the  canon  was  not  formed  before  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.     Hence  we  should  not  assign  the  origin  of  the  ver- 
sion to  an  earlier  date ;  nor  can  it  be  brought  lower  down  than 
the  time  of  Ephrem,  or  beyond  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury.    It  belongs  in  all  probability  to  the  end  of  the  second 
or  beginning  of  the  third ;  and  the  fact  of  its  wanting  certain 
books  may  be  explained  by  the  non-reception  of  them  in  the 
district  where  the  version  was  made.     They  were  not  acknow- 
ledged there  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  other  parts  of  the 
New  Testament.     Nor  need  we  be  surprised  at  this;  since 
the  same  epistles  and  treatises  were  suspected  or  positively 
rejected   in   other   countries.      In    the    east    these    writings 
belonged  for  a  considerable  time  to  the  avriXiyoiJ^iva  class  of 
Eusebius.     The  fact  is  significant  that  the  version  contains 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  was  not  received  in  some 
places  for  a  time ;  but  there  was  less  doubt  of  that  epistle  in 
the  east  than  in  the  west. 

But  whatever  date  be  assigned  to  the  origin  of  the  ver- 
sion, none  can  well  separate  the  New  Testament  part  from 
the  Old  by  attempting  to  give  them  very  different  dates.  In 
the  absence  of  all  historical  notices  about  either  being  first 
translated,  they  must  be  classed  nearly  together.  Internal 
evidence  goes  so  far  as  to  shew  that  the  Old  preceded  the 
New,  since  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are  usually 

*  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  by  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  pp.  .31,  32. 
t  Dissertation  upon  the  Logos,  pp.  67-75. 
+  Notes  to  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  p.  551,  et  seq. 


152  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

given  in  the  New  from  the  Peshito,  but  it  is  not  likely  that 
the  two  parts  of  this  version  were  widely  separated  in  origin. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Peshito  was  made  immediately 
from  the  Greek.  Nor  has  any  other  opinion  ever  been  enter- 
tained. No  hypothesis  that  it  was  made  from  some  Latin 
translation  has  at  any  time  prevailed.  Bengel  hazarded  a 
conjecture  that  possibly  it  was  not  taken  immediately  or  solely 
from  the  Greek,  but  that  the  translator  also  made  use  of  the 
Latin  version.*  And  even  Bengel's  doubts  did  not  respect 
the  genuine  Peshito,  but  merely  our  printed  editions.  Hence 
it  is  absurd  to  argue  against  an  opinion  which  none  ever  be- 
lieved. 

Two  circumstances  are  sufficient  to  shew  the  version's  im- 
mediate derivation  from  the  original.  There  are  mistakes  and 
misconceptions  which  find  their  explanation  in  no  other  cause 
than  the  Greek  text  lying  at  the  basis ;  and  there  are  many 
Greek  words  which  recur  frequently,  because  the  translator 
found  them  repeatedly  used  in  the  original  before  him. 

(a.)  "Ersgoj  is  confounded  with  ira.7io<;  in  Luke  xiv.  31 ; 
1  Corinth,  iv.  6,  xiv.  17;  2  Corinth,  viii.  8.  Ka;  axoXodoxJGiv  and 
sxoXX'/jdyjGav  are  similarly  confounded  in  Mark  vi.  1.  So  too 
sTou^dviog  and  vvou^dvioi  in  Eph.  vi.  12.  libf^l/iv  and  Vo^n^iv  were 
also  mistaken  for  one  another  in  Luke  ix.  42. 

It  is  possible  however  that  all,  or  at  least  some  of  these, 
may  be  owing  to  transcribers.  In  1  Peter  i.  13,  x'^i'^^  ^^<^ 
yjdpv  were  confounded ;  in  Matt.  xxi.  41,  -/.anug  xanuc,  is  trans- 
lated, instead  of  xaxoug  %a%Zji ;  in  Acts  xvi.  29,  air^eag  is  con- 
founded with  aidrjgac.  In  Acts  xiii.  12  there  is  a  false  con- 
struction, miratus  est  et  credidtt  in  doctrinam  Domini. 

(b.)   dvayxri  occurs  in  Matt,  xviii.  7,  Heb.  ix.  23 ;  GroiyjTa, 

*  "  Coptica  versio  et  Syriaca  valde  inter  se,  et  cum  Latinis  congru- 
unt  :  ambae  autem  permultis  in  locis  Graecos  codices  a  Latinis  desertos 
ita  sequuntur,  ut  fere  pro  immcdiatis  haberi  mereantur." — Introductio 
in  crisin  N.  T.  p.  44. 


THE   PESHITO.  153 

Gal.  iv.  9,  Colos.  ii.  8,  20 ;  czaeii  in  Mark  xv.  7 ;  rz/o,;?,  Matt, 
xxvii.  6,  Acts  v.  2 ;  dy^oj,  Matt,  xxvii.  7,  8,  10,  Mark  vi.  36 ; 
aywi/,  Phil.  i.  30,  Colos.  ii.  1,  &c. ;  ^s^oj,  Matt.  xxv.  35,  38, 
43,  44,  Heb.  xi.  13,  &c. 

Hug  discovered  in  the  27th  chapter  of  Matthew's  gospel 
alone  no  less  than  eleven  Greek  words,  for  which  the  transla- 
tor might  have  found  equivalent  ones  in  his  own  language.* 

The  original  extent  of  this  version  has  been  matter  of 
debate.  All  known  MSS.  of  it  with  one  exception,  contain 
the  four  gospels,  the  Acts,  fourteen  epistles  of  Paul,  includ- 
ing that  to  the  Hebrews,  first  of  Peter,  first  of  John,  and  the 
epistle  of  James.  Internal  evidence  abundantly  attests  that 
the  Bodleian  MS.  containing  other  catholic  epistles,  does 
not  exhibit  tliem  as  a  constituent  part  of  the  genuine  Peshito. 
Is  the  Peshito  therefore,  as  we  are  able  at  present  to  determine 
its  extent,  the  same  as  it  was  at  first  ?  Did  the  MSS.  of  it 
never  contain  the  portions  now  wanting  ? 

Hug  believed  that  it  had  them  at  first,  f  The  Apocalypse 
gradually  disappeared,  as  he  thinks,  in  the  fourth  century. 
The  other  portions  also  fell  away  before  the  sixth  century. 
The  proof  of  this  is  derived  from  Ephrem.  That  writer  fre- 
quently refers  to  the  Apocalypse  in  his  works.  But  he  could 
not  have  done  this  had  not  a  Syriac  version  of  it  existed,  as 
he  did  not  know  Greek.  In  like  manner  he  cites  Jude,  2 
Peter,  2  John.  There  is  little  probability  in  the  view  thus 
propounded  by  Hug  ;  and  accordingly  it  has  remained  peculiar 
to  himself.  It  is  not  very  clear  that  Ephrem  was  quite  un- 
acquainted with  Greek.  Hug  indeed  produces  the  testimony 
of  Sozomen  and  Theodoret  to  that  effect — these  writers  declar- 
ing him  to  be  without  iXKrivr/.ri  rraibiia.  so  that  in  his  intercourse 
with  the  Greeks  he  had  to  employ  an  interpreter.  Yet  it  does 
not  follow  from  this  that  he  was  without  so  much  Greek  as 
prevented  him  from  reading  the  books  of  the  Bible,  especially 

*  Einleitung,  ii.  s.  w.  vol.  i.  p.  301.  f  Ibid,  pp.  306,  307. 


154  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

as  he  often  alludes  in  his  works  to  the  difference  of  the  He- 
brew, Greek,  and  Syriac  reading  of  a  passage.  And  then  the 
gradual  falling  away  of  certain  books  from  the  version  is 
incredible.  What  could  have  caused  so  unusual  a  pheno- 
menon ?  By  what  means  was  it  effected  ?  What  adequate 
motive  could  have  led  to  it?  If  there  was  a  version  of  the 
four  epistles  in  question,  with  the  Apocalypse,  not  connected 
with  the  Peshito,  in  the  time  of  Ephrem,  as  is  possible,  it  must 
have  shared  the  fate  of  many  ancient  works,  having  totally 
perished.  In  any  case,  it  is  quite  improhahle  that  if  a  version 
did  exist  in  the  days  of  Ephrem  it  was  a  part  of  the  Peshito. 

On  the  other  hand,  Micliaelis  thought  that  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  not  a  genuine  part  of  the  old  Syriac.  When 
the  writer  of  the  epistle  refers  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  pas- 
sages are  quoted  according  to  the  Peshito,  and  therefore  it  must 
have  been  translated  later  than  the  other  books  of  the  New 
Testament  in  which  this  is  not  the  case ;  for  the  Christians 
translated  first  the  New  Testament  and  then  the  Old  into 
Syriac.  Michaelis  also  refers  to  a  difference  in  the  modes  of 
expression,  such  as,  in  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament 
(joici  is  used  to  signify  a  jyriest,  and  \iOVD  ^i  a  Mgh-priest ; 
but  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  find  constantly  in- 
stead of  these  terms  |j.^a£)  and  l^l^ao  ^5.*  Tliese  proofs 
are  satisfactorily  answered  by  Hug,  who  has  shewn  that  in 
regard  to  quotations,  the  same  thing  which  occurs  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  occurs  also  in  the  gospels,  Acts,  and 
epistles,  so  that  the  argument  founded  on  the  citations  proves 
too  much.  So  far  from  the  New  Testament  having  been 
translated  first,  it  followed  that  ot  the  Old  Testament,  for  the 
quotations  in  the  former  generally  agree  with  and  are  copied 
from  the  latter.  In  relation  to  the  conclusion  drawn  from  the 
different  terms  for  prt'esf  and  high-priest  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  other  books,  it  should  not  be  inferred  from  a 
*  See  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.  by  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  p.  5. 


THE    PE8ITIT0.  155 

circumstance  so  slight  that  there  was  a  different  translator. 
"  To  maintain  the  fact  of  different  translators  from  the  use  of 
different  expressions,  will  require  a  more  extensive  induction 
than  one  of  three  or  four  words."* 

On  the  whole,  we  cannot  but  believe,  till  new  evidence 
has  been  produced,  that  the  Peshito  wanted  at  first  the  four 
epistles  already  named,  together  with  the  Apocalypse,  and 
that  the  letter  to  the  Hebrews  is  a  genuine  part  of  it. 

Its  original  extent  was  such  as  it  had  in  the  ancient  MSS. 
used  by  Widmanstadt  and  Moses  of  Mardin  in  making  the 
first  printed  edition  ;  and  other  books,  not  to  say  smaller  pas- 
sages, should  never  have  been  associated  with  it  by  later 
editors.  It  ought  to  have  been  kept  distinct  in  its  own  proper 
contents. 

The  question  has  been  started,  whether  the  version  was 
made  by  one  or  more  translators.  It  is  very  difficult  however 
to  answer  it  satisfactorily.  In  regard  to  the  four  gospels, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  only  one  person  was  employed  on  them. 
There  are  an  equability  and  uniformity  in  words  and  phrases 
which  indicate  one  and  the  same  scholar.  But  in  the  Acts 
and  epistles  there  is  a  perceptible  difference.  There  the 
manner  is  more  free,  as  Hug  perceived,  and  others  since  his 
time  have  also  observed.f  But  the  alteration  can  hardly  be 
called  essential.  It  is  true  that  in  these  portions  many  words 
and  formulae  are  employed  which  do  not  occur  in  the  gospels, 
or  occur  there  less  frequently.  But  the  variation  is  scarcely 
sufficient  to  justify  the  hypothesis  of  different  translators. 
All  books  do  not  require  precisely  similar  treatment.  Nor  does 
one  person  always  follow  consistently  and  uniformly  the  same 
mode  of  translation.  Many  circumstances  may  influence  him 
in  taking  more  latitude  at  one  time  than  another.  We  should 
therefore  hesitate  to  assume  more  than  one  translator.     At 

*  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  .312. 
I  Wichelhaus,  Dc  Novi  Test,  versionc  Syriaca  antiqua,  etc.  p.  86,  note. 


156  BIBLICAL   CR1TICI8AI. 

least,  evidence  has  not  yet  been  furnished  sufficient  to  support 
another  conclusion.     The  question  remains  unsettled. 

The  general  character  of  the  version  is  freedom,  ease,  and 
propriety.  It  is  neither  very  literal  like  the  Philoxenian,  so 
as  to  present  a  stiffness  of  style ;  nor  is  it  paraphrastic.  On 
the  contrary,  a  happy  medium  is  followed.  The  language  is 
on  the  whole  pure,  and  the  idioms  well  rendered  out  of  Greek 
into  Syriac.  But  we  cannot  believe  with  Michaelis,  that  it  is 
"  the  very  best  translation  of  the  Greek  Testament  he  ever 
read ;"  or  "  that  it  must  be  ever  read  with  profound  venera- 
tion," since  there  is  not  "  a  single  instance  where  the  Greek  is 
so  interpreted  as  to  betray  a  weakness  and  ignorance  in  the 
translator."*  The  version  is  an  excellent  one;  but  it  has 
errors  and  mistakes.  The  translator  was  master  of  the  two 
languages,  and  executed  a  very  difficult  task  most  successfully. 
But  it  is  far  from  being  as  accurate  or  as  uniformly  good  as  it 
might  have  been.  And  yet  its  general  excellence  and  great 
antiquity  place  it  above  any  other  ancient  translation  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  conspiring  to  give  it  an  authority  which 
none  other  can  justly  claim.  Hence  it  must  always  be  con- 
sulted as  an  important  document,  in  the  criticism  and  interpre- 
tation of  the  New  Testament. 

Let  us  notice  some  peculiarities  of  it,  shewing  the  degree 
of  freedom  in  which  the  Syriac  interpreter  indulged. 

He  has  omitted,  added,  and  changed  in  many  cases.  Thus 
he  has — 

1.  Omitted  particles,  such  as  conjunctions  and  adverbs. 
To  the  former  belong  ya^,  Matt.  iii.  2 ;  xa/,  always  in  the  for- 
mula &ihc  -/.ai  Trarrj^^  Eph.  i.  3,  &c. ;  oV/,  in  such  cases  as  Matt, 
xix.  8,  XX.  12,  xxvii.  47;  mv,  Matt.  vi.  9;  6t,  Matt.  ii.  3;  fji^h, 
Eph.  iv.  11  ;  rs,  Eph,  i.  10.  To  the  latter  belong  sV/,  Matt, 
xviii.  16;  yjd^,  Matt.  xiv.  15  ;  !dov,  Matt.  i.  20 ;  cDv,  Eph.  ii.  2 ; 
TOTi,  Matt.  xxii.  21. 

*  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.  h\  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  pp.  40,  41. 


THE   PESHITO.  157 

He  has  also  omitted  synonymes,  as  in  James  i.  17,  hosig  xai 
bu)^rjijjOL  5  Matt.  xxiv.  24,  sri[Mi7a  n,zya\a  xat  rs^ara. 

Wo7-ds  immediately  j)receding  are  not  repeated,  as  'incoZg  in 
Matt.  xvi.  6  J  ny^&ov  in  Matt.  v.  17. 

Pronouns  are  omitted,  as  oZrog  or  sKimg,  Matt.  xi.  7,  xiii. 
38 ;  avTog  and  a-jroS,  Matt.  vi.  7  ;  u,awi/,  Eph.  vi.  5. 

In  like  manner  adjectives  are  neglected,  as  oXog  and  ■raj, 
Matt.  XV.  17,  xxvi.  56,  xxvii.  1. 

Verbs  not  of  much  consequence  to  the  sense  being  appar- 
ently redundant  were  also  left  out,  as  the  copula  j//^/,  Eph.  v. 
JO;  a-TTOTi^idsig,  Matt.  xv.  26,  28;  a^ov,  Matt.  xvii.  27.    So  with 

Xsywi',  sXd'jjv,  Xaf3u)v,  dvaffrdg. 

What  appeared  likelj'  to  embarrass  the  construction  or  to 
obstruct  the  sense  or  connection,  was  also  omitted,  as  in  Eph. 
11.  16,  h  aurip. 

2.  In  other  instances  the  translator  added  rather  than 
omitted,  and  sometimes  the  same  words  too  which  he  had 
elsewhere  left  out  or  neglected.     This  was  done  in 

Synonymous  words  as  in  Eph.  vi.  17 ;  Matt.  xiii.  48, 
xiv.  19. 

Words  tvh'ck  immediately  preceded  were  repeated,  as  'Ir,ffovg 
in  Matt.  iv.  19. 

What  seemed  likely  to  facilitate  the  meaning  of  a  passage, 
or  to  connect  the  thread  of  discourse  more  closely  together  was 
subjoined,  as  in  Eph.  i.  2,  ,^.  See  also  i.  9,  Eph.  iii.  6, 
promissio  quae  data  est,  &c. 

Words  that  presented  themselves  spontaneously  and  natu- 
rally were  added,  as  in  Acts  xiv.  7,  city  was  added  to  Lystra. 
Simon  to  Cephas,  Matt.  xxvi.  58,  house  of  Israel  for  Israel, 
Matt.  x.  23 ;  Jesus  Christ  for  Jesus,  Eph.  i.  15 ;  Judas  the 
traitor  for  Judas  simply,  Matt.  xxvi.  47. 

In  like  manner  verbs  not  at  all  necessary  to  the  sense  were 
inserted,  as  the  copula  sI/jlI,  Eph.  ii.  7  ;  the  verb  I- 1,  Matt, 
ii.  8. 


158  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Some  adjectives  that  readily  presented  themselves  to  the 
mind  were  also  inserted,  as  Tag,  Eph.  vi.  7  ;  sic,  Eph.  iv.  13. 

Pronouns  were  often  added,  ourog,  IxiTvog,  auroc,  Eph.  i.  6, 
11,  14;  avTov,  s/Moi),  co\j,  Eph.  i.  6,  ii.  1,  ii.  7,  &c. 

In  like  manner  particles  were  inserted,  including  conjunc- 
tions and  adverbs,  as  aXXd,  Eph.  ii.  8  ;  ya^,  Eph.  iv.  5 ;  »5, 
Eph.  V.  5 ;  xai\  Matt.  vi.  22  ;  ouv,  Eph.  v.  8 ;  idov,  Eph.  i.  15 ; 
TOTS,  Matt.  V.  12. 

3.  The  translator  also  changed  words  and  phrases.  Thus 
he  changed  single  words  as  substantives  into  adjectives,  w^sia, 
Eph.  iv.  14 ;  into  pronouns,  Eph.  iv.  13 ;  into  verbs,  Eph. 
i.  6;  into  adverbs,  Eph.  ii.  3,  cphsu,  plane. 

Adjectives  were  changed  into  substantives,  Eph.  i.  3. 

Pronouns  were  changed  into  substantives,  Eph.  iv.  15,  ug 
ahrov,  into  Christ. 

In  like  manner  the  relative  was  altered  into  the  demonstra- 
tive, as  Eph.  i.  11. 

Verbs  were  changed  into  substantives,  as  Eph.  iv.  16, 
av^TjGiv  iroiiirai  in  incrementum  corporis. 

Particles  were  also  changed,  as  ha  into  the  genitive,  Eph. 
iii.  12  ;  s/'g  into  the  nominative,  Eph.  v.  31  ;  1%  into  the  geni- 
tive, Matt.  xxiv.  17 ;  sv  into  the  nominative,  Eph.  ii.  7  ;  into 
the  genitive,  Eph.  ii.  11.  Thus  also  several  prepositions 
could  not  well  be  distinguished  in  Syriac  the  one  from  the 
other,  as  s/'g  and  iv,  utto,  •ra^a,  ««,  fMsrd,  and  T^og. 

Synonymes  were  changed,  as  Eph.  iv.  1 8,  v.  4. 

In  regard  to  declension,  one  case  was  changed  into  another, 
as  Matt.  XX.  27,  u/jjuiv  douXog  into  v/mTv  dovXog.  Unity  is  multi- 
plied, as  Eph.  iii.  3,  sv  oX/yw, 

As  to  conjugation,  the  active  was  altered  into  the  passive, 
Eph.  i.  10.  The  passive  into  the  active,  Eph.  ii.  5.  Instead 
of  the  imperative  was  put  the  future,  Eph.  iv.  27,  or  the  con- 
junctive, Eph.  ii.  16.  The  persons  are  changed,  as  in  Eph. 
ii.  5.     The  tenses  are  likewise  altered,   such   as  the  present 


THE    PESIUTO,  159 

into  the  past^  Matt.  xiii.  51,  or  the  future^  Matt.  xxiv.  40. 
The  preterite  is  made  a  present,  Eph.  v.  29,  aucl  the  future  a 
present,  Eph.  vi.  21. 

The  order  of  words  was  transposed,  as  in  Eph.  i.  1.  Thus 
adjectives  were  put  before  substantives,  as  smhw,  Eph.  ii.  12, 
or  put  after  them,  as  Eph.  ii.  4,  toXX-z^i/.  Verbs  are  put  first, 
as  Eph.  i.  22,  ■j'Tsra^sv.  What  were  separate  in  the  original 
were  put  together,  as  Eph.  ii.  3,  and  vice  versa  Eph.  i.  12. 
Sentences  were  transposed,  as  Eph.  vi.  2,  &c.  &c. 

In  the  same  way  Xoyos  is  put  before  msuij.a,  in  2  Thes. 
ii.  2]  Paul  before  Barnabas,  Acts  xiii.  2,  7,  xv.  12,  25;  the 
principal  men  of  the  city  before  the  women,  Acts  xiii.  50, 
xvii.  12 ;  Iconium  before  Antioch,  Acts  xiv.  19  ;  the  Sad- 
ducees  before  the  captain  of  the  temple,  Acts  iv.  1  ;  Jesus's 
mother  before  his  brethren,  Mark  iii.  31.  There  are  also 
various  clianges  made  in  order  to  explain  the  sense  of  words 
or  clauses  more  clearly.  Thus  in  Acts  xxiii.  27,  31,  er^ariurai 
is  rendered   Romani ;    in  Matt.  xvii.  19,  sx^aXsTv  auro,  sanare 

ilium  /    T^oana^TS^ouvng xal  rf  K(jivu)via    Kat    rfj  xXdcfn  rou 

a^Tou  xai  raTc,  itgodDycui  is  translated,  et  communicahant  in  jpreca- 
tione  et  in  fractione  eucharistiae  ;  a^rog  r^?  'r^odsgf.Mg  jJctnis  mensae 
Domini  /  oux,  'igt  Kv^ia-A.ov  dsTirvov  (paysTv,  non  sicut  justum  est  die 
Domini  nostri,  comeditis  et  hihitis. 

We  need  not  follow  this  subject  into  farther  details,  but 
refer  to  Winer,*  Loehlein,t  and  Rueckert,:}:  of  whose  works 
De  W^ette§  has  made  good  use ;  and  also  to   Wichelhaus.jl 

*  De  versionif?  N.  T.  Syriacae  usu  critico  caute  instituendo,  1823  ;  and 
Observationes  iu  epistolam  D.  Jacobi  ex  versione  Syriaca,  maximam 
partem  criticae,  1827. 

f  Syrus,  epistolae  ad  Ephesios  interpres,  &c.  1835. 

+  Der  Brief  Pauli  an  die  Ephesier  erlautert  und  vertheidigt,  1834. 

§  Einleitung,  p.  14. 

II  De  Novi  Testamenti  versione  Syriaca  antiqua  quam  Peschitho  vo- 
cant,  &c.     1850. 


160  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

The  essay  of  Loehlein  is  the  most  valuable  and  thorough 
of  all,  though  professedly  extending  only  to  the  Ephesian 
epistle. 

The  examples  already  given  might  be  extended  indefi- 
nitely, but  they  must  suffice  to  indicate  the  general  character 
of  the  version,  and  the  sort  of  license  which  the  translator  took 
from  choice  or  necessity. 

A  more  important  thing,  and  that  with  which  we  have 
chiefly  to  do,  is  the  nature  of  the  Oreeh  text  at  the  basis  of  the 
Feshito. 

The  Greek  text  followed  by  the  translator  bears  upon  it 
the  marks  of  a  high  antiquity.  He  lived  near  the  country 
where  the  first  collection  of  the  sacred  writings  was  made, 
and  in  a  land  where  learned  fathers  had  flourished  who  were 
able  to  write  in  Greek,  so  complete  masters  were  they  of  that 
language.  Hence  the  Syriac  interpreter  could  not  fail  to  have 
an  ancient  copy  to  serve  as  the  ground-work  of  his  version. 
The  ability  too  which  he  has  displayed,  shews  him  in  the  light 
of  a  scholar  familiar  with  the  language  and  writings  of  the 
New  Testament  books,  who  could  judge  of  the  goodness  of  a 
MS.  Hence  we  must  believe  that  he  consulted  one  of  the 
best  copies  he  could  procure,  in  the  preparation  of  his  impor- 
tant work. 

When  we  compare  the  text  of  the  Peshito  with  the  oldest 
critical  authorities,  its  importance  is  readily  perceived.  These 
are  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  the  old  Latin  version 
used  by  Tertullian  and  other  fathers.  But  as  Irenaeus'  works 
have  for  the  most  part  survived  only  in  a  Latin  version,  they 
cannot  be  very  exactly  employed  for  collation  with  the  text  of 
the  Peshito.  Subtracting  them  there  remain  Clement  and  the 
old  Latin,  with  which  the  text  of  the  Peshito  has  a  striking- 
coincidence.  In  passages  where  the  three  coincide,  the  reading- 
must  be  considered  as  one  of  the  oldest.    And  the  number  of  such 


THE   PESHITO.  161 

coincidences  is  not  small.  Of  course  where  they  do  take  place, 
the  readings  they  exhibit  are  entitled  to  great  attention.  We 
shall  adduce  a  few  examples  of  their  agreement.* 

Matt.  XV.  8j  6  Xahg  olrog  ro7c,  p^s/Xsff/i/  /as  r//xa.  The  received 
text  has  several  other  words  which  are  not  genuine. 

Matt,  xviii.  10,  h  ov^avoTg  after  oi  ayyiXoi  avToiv  is  omitted. 
It  was  probably  a  gloss. 

Mark  X.  27,  Taga  ds  rw  dsui  duvarov. 

But  although  the  readings  of  these  three  authorities  be 
entitled  to  great  weight,  they  must  not  be  at  once  received  as 
the  original  ones.  They  should  be  judged  of  by  all  the  evi- 
dence, and  admitted  or  rejected  accordingly. 

A  few  examples  may  now  be  given  where  the  Peshito  and 
old  Latin  coincide.  These  are  very  abundant ;  and  the  read- 
ings are  valuable  in  which  the  agreement  occurs. 

Mark  i.  2,  Iv  'Hgocia  tw  TgofrjTri  •  i.  19,  'Xgo(3ag  hX'iyov^  24,  ri 
tiIJjTv  xai  col  without  sa  /  i.  42,  xa/  ludiug  aitriKkv  %.  r.  X.  /  Matt. 
VI.  18,  a'Todwest  ffoi  /  Gral.  iii.  1,  rig  un,ag  sfSadxavsv,  oTg  zar  x.  t.  X,  / 
Matt.  vi.  15,  TO,  'xaiaTTu^ara  av-rojv  of  the  received  text  is 
omitted  J  vii.  29,  ug  o/  y^af^juyocn/g  avruv  xai  o'l  fapaaToi  y  ix.  15, 
vYiGTixjiiv ;  ix.  35,  sv  TU)  Xaw  is  omitted. 

As  the  text  of  the  Peshito  agrees  with  the  old  Latin,  it 
agrees  of  course  with  D.  or  the  codex  Cantabrigiensis  in  the 
gospels  and  Acts,  and  to  a  considerable  extent  with  the  cod. 
Claromontanus  in  the  Pauline  epistles.  Thus  Michaelis  found 
that  in  the  first  twenty-two  chapters  of  the  Acts,  the  cod. 
Cantab,  and  Peshito  coincide  in  seventy-seven  readings,  and 
in  the  first  ten  chapters  of  Mark's  gospel  in  twenty  readings 
found  in  no  other  MS.f 

But  though  the  Peshito  is  very  frequently  accompanied 
by  the  old  Latin  in  its  readings,  and  by  the  oldest  class  of 
MSS.,  yet  it  has  others  peculiar  to  itself,  or  nearly  so.     Among 

*  Eichhorn's  Einleitung,  vol.  iv.  §  58,  p.  415,  et  seq. 
t   Curae  in  versionem  Sjn-iacam  Actuum  apostolicorum,  pp.  1G3,  164, 
VOL.  II.  M 


162  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

these  may  be  specified  Mark  ii.  8,  or/   raSra   biaXoyi^ovrai   h  tau- 

ToTg  ;  Heb.  ix.  20,  'Tr^hg  bf/,ag  is  omitted  ;  Romans  v.  7,  pro  im- 
proMs,  thus  reading  along  with  the  Erpenian  Arabic  taken 
from  it,  abixog  instead  of  hixaiog ;  Luke  viii.  22,  xai  dvri^di^aav 
is  left  out.  So  too  the  Persian.  In  Matt.  vi.  13  the  doxology 
is  inserted,  with  the  Ethiopic,  Persian,  Armenian,  &c.  Matt, 
xxviii.  18  these  words  are  added,  xal  -/.adZg  d'TrsgraXzs  /ji,i  o'lraTr}^ 
fiov,  ndjM  dToffrsXXoo  i/^as,  which  are  also  in  the  Persian.  They 
are  transferred  from  John  xx.  21.  In  Mark  vi.  11,  the  words 
dfirjv  Xsyu  vfjbTr  dvixroTB^ov  'sotui  lobofLOig  7]  To/j,6^'^oig  iv  yifis^ct  x^lfficog, 
7]  rfi  it(}kii  sxsivr)  are  appended,  taken  from  Matt.  x.  15.  They 
are  also  in  the  Persian. 

But  it  is  likely  that  some  of  these  readings  liave  been 
added  to  the  genuine  text  since  it  was  made  from  the  Greek ; 
for  the  present  printed  Peshito  is  taken  from  comparatively 
junior  MSS.,  and  we  know  that  the  oldest  ones  differ  in  many 
instances  from  the  printed  text.* 

There  is  no  good  reason  for  supposing,  as  Bengel  apparently 
did,  that  the  Syriac  translator  made  use  of  the  old  Latin 
version.  They  were  independent  of  one  another  as  two 
separate  documents  circulating  at  the  same  time  in  different 
countries ;  and  the  similarity  of  the  text  lying  at  the  basis  of 
each  must  be  explained  by  their  antiquity. 

The  version  before  us  has  been  perplexing  to  Griesbach  in 
relation  to  his  system  of  recensions  ;  for  he  could  not  well 
assign  it  to  the  western,  the  Alexandrine,  or  the  Constanti- 
nopolitan  recension.  At  one  time  he  conjectured  that  it  had 
been  repeatedly  revised  at  different  times  after  different  Greek 
MSS;t  but  at  a  later  period  $  that  it  had  undergone  only  one 
such  revisal  after  a  certain  kind  of  Greek  text.  The  opinion 
of  Hug  is  more  probable,  who  refers  it  to  the  -/.oivri    ixbogig,  in 

*  See  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  pp.  14,  15  ;  and  Eichhorn,  Einleit. 
vol.  iv.  §  58.  t  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  72,  eel.  Schulz. 

X  Meletema  II.  in  his  Commentarius  Criticus,  &c.  Partic.  ii.  pp.  51,  52. 


THE    PESHITO.  163 

which  Eichhorn,  Winer,  and  Muralt  coincide.  Both  the  old 
Latin  and  it  belong  to  the  most  ancient  period  of  text,  and 
therefore  they  agree  so  strikingly. 

On  the  whole,  the  text  at  the  basis  of  the  Peshito  has  most 
resemblance  to  D.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Irenaeus,  and  the 
old  Latin.  There  are  also  places  in  which  its  readings  are 
exhibited  in  the  best  ancient  copies,  such  as  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.* 
It  is  an  old  and  valuable  document. 

But  though  this  be  the  prevailing  character  of  its  text,  yet 
it  exhibits  Asiatic  readings  also.  It  approaches  in  not  a  few 
cases  the  text  of  Chrysostom.  It  favours  the  textus  receptus. 
This  indeed  might  have  been  expected  from  its  birth-place. 
The  extent  however  to.  which  it  agrees  with  the  received  text 
has  not  been  investigated ;  for  greater  attention  has  been  given 
to  its  ancient  readings,  or  at  least  to  what  critics  have  judged 
so,  because  they  are  found  in  contemporary  documents  and 
authorities.  There  is  little  doubt  that  it  approaches  to  the 
received  text  oftener  than  has  been  suspected,  f 

Let  us  now  refer  to  a  few  prominent  readings  in  this  ver- 
sion which  attract  the  critic's  notice,  and  whose  appearance  is 
capable  of  various  explanations. 

In  Matt.  X.  8,  the  words  vsK^oxjg  sysl^srs  are  not  in  the 
Peshito.  They  are  indeed  in  most  editions,  including  Schaaf 's, 
but  they  are  not  in  the  Vienna  one ;  and  it  may  therefore  be 
fairly  presumed  that  they  do  not  belong  to  the  genuine 
Peshito. 

In  Matt,  xxvii.  9,  'U^s/j^iou  the  name  of  the  prophet  is 
omitted.  The  margin  of  the  Philoxenian  has  ZechariaJi  in- 
stead of  Jeremiah. 

In  Matt,   xxvii.   35,   'ha  'XAyj^ojdfi xX5jgov  are  not  in  the 

version.  Nor  do  we  suppose  that  they  were  in  the  Greek  copy 
or  copies  lying  before  the  translator. 

*  Michaelis,  Curae  in  versionem  Syriacam,  &c.  p.  177,  et  seq. 
t  See  Wiclielhaus,  pp.  268,  2G9. 


164  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

The  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark's  gospel  belong  to  the  version. 

In  Luke  i.  75,  the  clause  ivuiTiov  aOroD  is  omitted. 

Acts  viii.  37,  is  wanting.  Schaaf  has  it  improperly  in  the 
text. 

In  Acts  XV.  34,  the  whole  verse  is  left  out. 

Acts  xxviii.  29,  is  also  wanting,  and  rightly  so. 

A  peculiar  reading  occurs  in  Acts  xviii.  7,  where  Titus  is 
in  the  Syriac  for  the  Greek  Justus.  For  this  Hug  offers  an 
ingenious  explanation.  The  translator  in  his  opinion  divided 
the  Greek  terms  thus  onoma — tiiots — TOT — sebomenot, 
and  prolonged  the  stroke  at  the  top  of  the  second  i  in  Til  or  2, 
so  as  to  make  TITOT5.  But  the  conjecture  is  most  im- 
probable, for  in  this  way  he  would  have  violated  grammatical 
rule ;  and  he  was  by  no  means  ignorant  of  Greek  construc- 
tion. * 

In  connection  with  this  reading  it  may  be  observed,  that 
the  translator  has  elsewhere  blundered  in  Latin  words.  He 
did  not  know  the  language.  Thus  it  is  thought  that  he  meant 
to  express  custodia  or  custodes  by  IjJO^CClD  what  is  now  Rish 
being  a  mistake  for  Dolath.  Others  take  it  for  questionarius 
or  questionarn.-\  We  may  also  refer  to  Forum  Apini^  Acts 
xxviii.  15. 

The  paragraph  in  John's  gospel  relating  to  the  adulteress 
does  not  belong  to  the  version.  Nor  do  we  believe  it  was  in 
the  Greek  text  from  which  the  version  was  derived,  or  that 
monachism  in  Syria  had  to  do  with  its  absence  from  the 
Peshito,  as  Wichelhaus  supposes. 

Luke  xxii.  17,  18,  are  not  in  the  version,!  and  accordingly 
they  do  not  appear  in  the  Vienna  edition  founded  on  MSS. 
Tremellius  however  siqypUed  them  ;  and  Schaaf  has  inserted 
them  without  scruple  in  the  text.  Such  conduct  is  highly 
reprehensible. 

*  See  Hug,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  302.        f  Comp.  Wichelhau.s,  pp.  237,  238. 
X  Assemani  Biblioth.  Vat.  vol.  ii.  p.  70. 


THE    PESHITO.  165 

In  1  Cor.  V.  8,  the  version  has,  "  but  with  the  leaven  of 
purity  and  sanctity,"  instead  of  "  the  unleavened  bread  of  sin- 
cerity and  truth." 

Here  Adler*  was  -svrong  in  charging  the  reading  li  i  V)k> 
instead  of  l^-»-4^  upon  the  Nestorians,  for  both  Nestorians 
and  Jacobites  have  it.  It  is  not  confined  to  Nestorian  MSS., 
but  belongs  to  the  Jacobite  ones  also.  Moses  of  Mardin  be- 
longed to  the  Jacobites,  and  yet  he  had  it  in  his  MSS.,  and  so 
it  was  printed  in  the  Vienna  edition.  The  Malabar  MS.  used 
by  Dr.  Lee  also  has  it.  Both  parties  too  employ  fermented 
hread  in  the  east.  Indeed  it  would  appear  that  there  is  no 
authority  for  If-*.^^.  All  collated  MSS.  have  the  other  ;  and 
those  editions  which  put  ]^j^2)  rest  on  no  other  foundation 
than  conjecture,  t 

Hug  does  not  say,  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Introduction, 
that  Adler  found  U^.£i^  "  in  MSS.  which  according  to  the  in- 
scription were  Nestorian."  |  Neither  does  Professor  Lee  in 
reply  to  Hug  state  that  the  preference  given  to  the  reading 
"  with  the  leaven,"  by  putting  it  in  the  text  shews  Jacobite 
MSS.  to  have  been  used.  §  Such  representations  of  the  senti- 
ments expressed  by  both  critics  are  alike  unfounded  and 
untrue. 

In  1  Tim.  iii.  16  k6g  is  not  found.  The  reading  fol- 
lowed was  either  05  or  0,  most  probably  the  former. 

We  have  now  indicated  the  character  of  the  version  and 
the  text  at  the  basis  of  it  with  sufficient  clearness  to  shew 
its  utility  in  criticism.  In  weight  and  authority  it  sur- 
passes any  other  version  of  the  Greek  Testament.  Indeed 
there  is  no  ancient  translation  either  of  the  Old  or  New  Tes- 
tament which  furnishes  so    much  assistance  in  the  criticism 

*  De  Versionibus  Syris,  p.  39. 
t  Lee's  Prolegomena  to  Bagster's  Polyglott,  p.  44. 
X  See  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  328,  fourth  edition. 
§  See  Lee's  Prolegomena  to  Bagster's  Polyglott,  p.  44. 


166  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

of  the  text.  Its  antiquity,  its  general  fidelity,  its  accu- 
racy, conspire  to  elevate  it  higher  than  any  extant  trans- 
lation. 

One  caution  must  be  particularly  attended  to  in  applying 
its  text  to  critical  purposes — a  caution  urged  by  Winer  and 
Loehlein.  We  must  pay  regard  to  the  construction  of  the 
language  and  the  peculiar  manner  of  the  translator.  There 
are  deviations  from  the  Greek,  inversions,  changes,  which 
must  not  be  construed  into  peculiar  readings.  They  are 
\di\\\e,x  peculiarities  of  the  version  itself  \h&xi  of  the  Greek  text 
whence  it  was  taken.  Hence  they  should  not  be  transferred 
to  the  latter. 

This  mistake  is  often  made.  Not  to  speak  of  many  pas- 
sages in  which  it  is  very  pardonable  because  the  distinction 
in  them  between  peculiarities  of  the  version  and  various  read- 
ings properly  so  called  is  not  easily  made,  the  following  have 
been  absurdly  adduced ;  and  collators  such  as  Mill,  Wetstein, 
Griesbach  and  Scholz  blamed  for  overlooking  or  omitting 
them  in  their  critical  apparatus !  They  belong  simply  to  the 
translator,  and  do  not  at  all  partake  of  the  character  of  vari- 
ous readings. 

Matt.  i.  24,  "  took  her  for  his  wife"  is  the  literal  render- 
ing of  the  Syriac.  But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the 
translator  had  before  him  in  the  Greek  text  -ra^gXa/Ss  ahrriv 
yxiVOLino.  avrov. 

In  Matt.  ii.  11,  the  order  of  the  three  gifts  in  the  Syriac 
is,  gold,  and  myrrh,  and  frankincense.  The  sequence  is 
changed  by  the  translator  in  a  thousand  places. 

Matt.  iv.  1,  instead  of  "by  the  Spirit,"  as  in  the  Greek, 
the  translator  inserted  the  adjective  holy  before  Spirit.  Many 
adjectives  he  has  arbitrarily  inserted  in  other  places.  Again, 
in  Matt.  iv.  19,  21,  the  Syriac  inserts  Jesus.  None  however 
should  think  from  this  that  the  word  Jesus  was  in  the  Greek. 
In  Matt.  iv.  24,  a  pronoun  is  represented  in  Syriac  which  is 


THE    PESHITO.  167 

merely  imjylied  in  the  Greek,  viz.  ^oL^  ye.  But  the  transla- 
tor must  not  be  supposed  on  this  account  to  have  had  '\JtJ.i7c 
in  the  Greek  copy  before  him.  He  has  taken  far  greater 
license  than  this  in  relation  to  pronouns.* 

The  extracts  hitherto  given  from  the  version  are  still  faulty 
and  incomplete.  But  since  the  time  Michaelis  and  Bode 
pointed  out  the  faults  of  Mill,  Bengel,  and  Wetstein,  fewer 
mistakes  have  been  made,  f  Yet  the  editions  of  Griesbach 
and  Scholz  are  not  free  from  errors,  as  Loehlein  has  shewn  ; 
while  important  extracts  might  have  been  multiplied.  What 
is  most  wanted  is  a  new  and  critical  edition  from  many  more 
MSS.  than  have  been  yet  employed  or  collated.  There  are 
very  old  and  important  copies  in  this  country,  brought  from 
the  Nitrian  desert.  These  are  sufficiently  numerous  and  valu- 
able to  lay  at  the  basis  of  a  new  edition,  even  without  the 
assistance  of  such  as  are  in  the  Vatican  and  other  libraries  of 
Europe.  Michaelis's  words  are  still  true,  that  "  in  using  this 
version  we  must  never  forget  that  our  present  editions  are  very 
imperfect,  and  not  conclude  that  every  reading  of  the  Syriac 
printed  text  was  the  reading  of  the  Greek  MSS."  when  the 
version  was  made.| 

Let  us  now  enumerate  the  chief  printed  editions. 

1 .  In  the  year  1552  Ignatius,  patriarch  of  the  Maronites,  sent 
a  priest,  Moses  of  Mardin,  to  Europe,  to  Pope  Julius  the  Third, 
to  make  submission  to  the  Roman  See  in  the  name  of  the 
Syrian  church,  and  to  bring  with  him  'printed  copies  of  the 
New  Testament.  Moses  could  find  none  to  undertake  the 
work  either  at  Rome  or  Venice,  till  at  last  Albert  Widman- 
stadt,  chancellor  of  Austria  under  Ferdinand  I.,  prevailed  upon 
the  emperor  to  bear  the  expense.     It  was  executed  accordingly 

*  See  Loehlein,  p.  25,  et  seq. 

■j"  Curae  in  versionem  Syriacam  Actuum  Apostolicorum  1755  ;  and 
Pseudocritica  Millio-Bengeliana,  1767. 

\  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  l\y  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  p.  46. 


168  BIBLICAL   CHITICISM. 

by  the  joint  labours  of  Moses,  Widmanstadt,  and  W.  Postell ; 
and  the  whole  was  completed  in  1555,  Vienna,  two  volumes 
quarto.  The  first  six  lines  of  the  title  page  are  Syriac,  in  the 
Estraugelo  character,  the  first  four  containing  larger  letters  than 
the  last  two.  They  are  followed  immediately  by  the  Latin 
translation,  Liber  sacrosancti  evcmgelii  de  Jesu  Ghristo  Domino 
et  Deonostro.  JReliqua  hoc  codice  coniprehensa  pagina  proxima 
indicdbit.  Under  this  is  Div.  Ferdinandi  Rom.  itrvperatoris 
designati  jussu  et  liberaUtate^  cliaracteribus  et  lingua  Syra  Jesu 
Ghristo  vernacula  Divino  ipsius  ore  consecrata,  et  a  Joh.  Evan- 
gelista  Hebraica  dicta^  scriptorio  Prelo  diligenter  expressa.  Then 
follows  another  line  in  the  Estrangelo  character,  consisting  of 
four  words,  with  the  Latin  translation  below,  principium  sapi- 
entiae  timor  Domini.  Though  the  date  is  not  on  the  title  page, 
yet  it  may  be  found  in  other  parts  more  than  six  times  repeated. 
It  is  therefore  inexcusable  in  Wichelhaus  to  give  1561  instead 
of  1555.  Titles,  dedications,  and  subscriptions  are  copiously 
interspersed  throughout ;  in  fact,  before  each  gospel  there  is  a 
leaf,  on  one  side  of  which  is  a  Syriac  title,  on  the  other  a  Latin 
translation  of  it.  The  work  is  handsomely  printed  in  good, 
legible  letters,  and  must  be  regarded  as  very  accurate.  Chap- 
ters and  verses  are  not  distinguished  as  in  our  present  Greek 
editions,  but  our  chapters  are  numbered  in  the  margin  in 
Arabic  letters.  The  text  is  divided  according  to  the  reading- 
lessons  for  the  Sundays  and  festivals  observed  by  the  Syrian 
church,  of  which  a  list  is  given  at  the  end  of  the  book.  The 
headings  of  these  sections  is  in  the  Estrangelo  character.  It 
appears  that  there  are  76  in  Matthew,  43  in  Mark,  75  in  Luke, 
53  in  John. 

The  vowel  points  are  not  put  everywhere.  Many  words 
have  none.     Many  others  have  some,  not  all. 

It  should  be  observed,  that  the  last  two  epistles  of  John, 
the  second  of  Peter,  the  epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse 
are  wantina'. 


THE    PESHITO.  169 

Of  the  edition  in  question,  a  thousand  copies  were  printed, 
of  which  the  emperor  reserved  five  hundred  for  sale,  sent  three 
hundred  to  the  two  Syrian  patriarchs,  and  made  a  present  of 
two  hundred  to  Moses. 

In  some  of  the  copies,  on  the  reverse  of  the  title  page  are 
the  arms  of  the  printer  Zimmermann,  with  the  subscription  cum 
Mom.  Caes.  Maj.  gratia  et  'privilegio  cautum  est^  ut  nemo  deinceps 
hoc  opics  imprmiat.  Viennae  Austriae  excudebat  Michael  Zim- 
mermann^ Anno  MDLXii.  Hirt*  supposed  that  in  this  year  the 
printer  purchased  from  the  emperor  the  remainder  of  the  copies. 

Besides  the  books  which  are  wanting  in  this  edition,  be- 
cause they  are  wanting  in  the  genuine  Peshito,  the  following 
passages  are  also  absent: — (1.)  The  story  of  the  adulteress, 
John  vii.  53 — viii.  1-11.      (2.)   1  John  v.  7. 

Some  words  are  also  wanting  in  Matt.  x.  8,  and  xxvii. 
35.  Luke  xxii.  17,  18,  are  also  absent.  These  three  places 
however,  together  with  John  vii.  53 — viii.  11,  stand  in  the  list  of 
typographical  errors  at  the  end ;  and  are  marked  with  a  star. 
They  are  properly  various  readings,  not  taken  from  Syriac, 
but  from  Greek  or  Latin  MSS.  It  is  likely,  that  as  Moses 
of  Mardin  was  a  Jacobite,  according  to  his  own  profession  to 
Masius,  and  as  his  edition  was  prepared  for  the  use  of  the 
Jacobites,  being  distributed  into  sections  agreeably  to  the  rites 
of  the  Jacobite  church,  Widmanstadt  was  afraid  that  the 
edition  might  get  into  disrepute  on  account  of  passages  which 
differed  from  the  Vulgate.  Hence  he  put  among  errata  what 
was  wanting  in  the  Syriac  text  compared  with  the  Vulgate, 
or  what  was  read  in  a  different  manner,  f 

*  See  his  Oriental,  und  Exegetischer  Bibliothek,  Theil  ii.  p.  260,  et 
seq  ;  iv.  p.  317,  et  seq  ;  v.  p.  25,  et  seq. 

j"  "  Propter  pauca  quaedam  loca  inter  typographicas  emendationes 
notata  hoc  signo,  *  in  quibus  libri  Syrorum  a  nostris  discrepant,  vel  ob 
historiam  adulterae  apud  Johannem,  quod  et  in  Graecis  exemplaribus 
non  infrequens  est,  praetermissam,  opus  totum  per  calumniam  ne  repre- 
hcndito." — Widmanstadt. 


170  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

We  have  very  little  information  about  the  MSS.  from 
which  the  text  was  taken.  It  would  appear  that  Moses 
brought  with  him  two  MSS.  *  which  Marsh  thinks  were  not 
duplicates  of  the  whole  Syriac  Testament,  but  only  two  dif- 
ferent volumes,  one  containing  the  Gospels,  the  other  the 
Acts  and  Epistles.  But  this  is  very  uncertain.  At  the  end 
of  the  Gospels  Moses  states  in  Syriac  and  Widmanstadt  in 
Latin,  that  the  edition  was  taken  from  two  MSS. ;  one  be- 
longing to  Moses,  written  at  Mosul  on  the  Tigris  according  to 
Masius,  the  other  to  Widmanstadt.  Adler  relates  that  the 
former  is  still  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Vienna,  marked  cod. 
Lambecii  258.  But  this  codex  was  written  by  Moses  of  Mar- 
din  himself,  and  is  not  an  ancient  one.f  There  is  no  doubt 
that  good  and  ancient  copies  formed  the  basis  of  the  edition, 
though  they  were  in  Jacobite  hands.  That  they  were  Nesto- 
rian  copies  should  not  be  asserted  with  Adler,  who  has  made 
a  mistake  in  attributing  to  the  codices  of  the  Nestorians 
alone,  defects  and  peculiarities  belonging  to  all  the  Syrian 
copies. 

This  editio  princeps  is  most  highly  valued  by  every 
scholar,  not  merely  because  it  is  the  first,  but  because  its 
text  is  very  accurate,  being  derived  almost  entirely  from  MS. 
authority.  But  Marsh's  praise  is  extravagant  when  he  says, 
"  It  may  be  considered  as  a  perfect  pattern  of  the  genuine 
Peshito,  which  cannot  be  said  of  any  subsequent  edition." | 
It  has  become  rare. 

2.  Tremellius,  a  converted  Jew  and  professor  at  Heidel- 
berg, edited  a  new  edition  of  the  Syriac  Testament  which 
appeared  in  1569  folio,  at  Geneva,  printed  by  Henry  Stephens. 

*  Why  Scrivener  (Supplement  to  the  authorised  English  version,  vol. 
i.  p.  64,  Introduction)  says  that  the  edition  was  printed  from  a  single 
MS.  we  are  unable  to  say.  f  See  Wichelhaus,  p.  217. 

%  Notes  to  Michaelis\s  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  537,  538, 


THE    PESIIITO,  171 

The  title  page  sufficiently  explains  its  character,  *  The  work 
is  arranged  in  four  columns,  one  page  containing  the  Greek 
text  and  Beza's  Latin  translation ;  the  other  the  Peshito  printed 
in  the  Hebrew  character,  and  a  literal  Latin  translation  of  it 
by  Tremellius  himself.  It  detracted  from  the  value  of  the 
work  that  for  the  want  of  Syriac  type  the  learned  editor  was 
compelled  to  use  the  Hebrew  letters.  As  he  was  accustomed 
to  the  Chaldee  dialect,  he  made  some  slight  changes  so  as  to 
bring  the  Syriac  into  a  closer  conformity  to  the  Chaldee. 
Thus  instead  of  the  letter  nun  which  is  prefixed  to  the  third 
person  of  the  future  in  Syriac,  he  put  yod,  out  of  conformity 
to  the  Chaldee  language.  Vowel  points  are  regularly  put  to 
the  text,  all  beneath  it. 

The  basis  of  the  text  is  the  preceding  edition  of  Wid- 
manstadt.  Besides  this  Tremellius  had  MSS.  which  he  made 
use  of  to  a  considerable  extent.  Thus  he  often  cites  in  the 
marginal  notes  a  Heidelberg  MS.  which  was  subsequently 
carried  to  Rome  with  the  Heidelberg  library.  He  has  also 
supplied  the  lacunae  of  the  Vienna  edition  in  Matt,  xxi v.  1 7 ; 
John  V.  20,  vi.  39;  Acts  xxii.  11  ;  Romans  .i.  17;  1  Cor. 
ix.  22,  &c.  and  has  corrected  errata,  ex.  gr.  in  Matt.  xiv.  3, 
xvi.  22 ;  Acts  iii.  5 ;  Romans  iii.  7,  xv.  2 ;  Heb.  ii.  9.  In 
other  places  he  confesses  that  he  could  not  correct,  from  his 
MS.,  the  reading  which  he  regarded  as  corrupt,  Matt.  vii.  23, 
xxii.  23 ;  Acts  v.  41 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  23.  The  two  columns  in 
which  the  Syrian  text  and  the  Latin  version  of  the  narrative 
relating  to  the  adulteress  should  stand  are  left  vacant  at  that 
place  with  these  words  :   vacat  haec  pagina  quod  Mstoria  de 

*  'H  xani]  bia6rjKri  Testamentum  novum  ^'^'y]  ^p"*^!^-  Est 
autem  interpretatio  Syriaca  Novi  Testamenti  hebraeis  typis  descripta, 
plerisque  etiam  locis  emendata.  Eadem  latino  sermone  reddita,  Autore 
Immanuele  Treniellio,  theol.  doctore  et  professore  in  schola  Heidelber- 
gensi,  cujiis  etiam  grammatica  chaldaica  et  Syra  calci  operis  adjccta  est. 
Excudcbat  Ilenr.  Stephanus.     Anno  m.d.lxi.x. 


172  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

adultera  in  interpret.  8yriaca  non  extet.  In  like  maniiev  the 
editor  remarks  in  the  margin  at  1  John  v.  7,  that  this  verse  is 
not  found  in  the  Syrian  version  and  in  many  MSS.  Bruns* 
has  pointed  out  the  rash  alterations  made  in  the  text  without 
MS.  authority,  such  as  Matt.  x.  8,  xxvii.  35 ;  Luke  xxii. 
17,  18;  Acts  XV.  34. 

The  Syriac  and  Chaldee  grammar  at  the  end  of  the  book 
occupies  twenty-seven  leaves. 

The  chief  blame  attached  to  the  editor  is  that  he  was 
smitten  with  too  great  a  desire  of  conforming  the  Syriac  text 
to  the  Greek.  His  aim  was  not  so  much  to  present  the  text 
current  among  the  ancient  Syrians  as  to  edit  a  Syriac  or 
Chaldee  version  conformed  to  the  original  authentic  Greek, 

At  the  end  of  the  work  is  a  list  of  passages  to  which  is 
prefixed  the  following  superscription : — Loci  quidam  in  quorum 
scriptura  partim  peccarunt  operae,  partiin  codex  Viennensis  ex 
Heidelhergensi  est  emendandus^  ex.  gr.  Matt,  xxvii.  20,  lr«"*-«-3? 
^0(7Ul  Held.  ^Q^].«_3?  item  Eaphel.  et  Guelpherb. 

The  edition  is  now  scarce,  f 

3.  The  next  edition  is  that  contained  in  the  fifth  volume 
of  the  Antwerp  Polyglott  which  issued  from  the  Plantin  press 
in  1572  in  folio.  Here  the  text  is  printed  both  in  Syriac  and 
Hebrew  letters.  The  editor  was  Guido  Fabricius  or  Guy  Le 
Fevre  de  la  Boderie  5  and  the  basis  of  the  text  is  Widman- 
stadt's.  According  to  the  editor's  own  statement  in  the  pre- 
face, he  had  one  MS.  which  he  compared  and  used : — 
"  Syrumque  Nbvi  Testamenti  contextum  a  me  litteris  Hebraicis 
descriptum,  diligenter  recognovi,  atque  cum  vetustissimo  eocemplari 
Syro,  Jam.  ah  anno  1500  regni  Alexandri  (1188),  a  quo  Syri 
annos  suos  numeranf,  manuscripto  religiose  contuli.  Illud  autem 
vetustissimwn  exennplar  allatum  fuerat  ex    Oriente  a  Postelhy 

*  In  the  Repertorium  fiir  bibl.  und  morgenl.  Literatur.     Th.  xv.  p.  153. 
t  See  Rosenmiiller's  Handbuch  fiir  die  Literatur,    u.  s.  w.  vol.  iii. 
p.  103,  et  ser[. 


THE   PESHITO.  173 

Tlie  MS.  in  question  has  been  identified  by  Marsh  with  the 
codex  Coloniensis  now  in  the  University  Library  at  Leyden, 
from  which  Rapheleng  selected  various  readings  appended  to 
the  editions  of  the  Syriac  Testament  which  proceeded  from  his 
press  in  1575,  1583.  But  there  is  great  reason  for  doubting 
the  truth  of  this,  since  the  MS.  in  question  has  many  readings 
adapted  to  the  Greek  text  and  even  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
Examples  are  given  by  Wichelhaus.*  Fabricius  added  a 
Latin  translation.  The  value  of  his  edition  cannot  be  veiy 
great,  since  the  text  was  altered  after  tlie  MS.  mentioned. 

4.  In  1574  Plantin  published  in  8vo  an  edition  of  the 
Syiiac  in  Hebrew  letters,  without  points.  It  is  the  same  text 
as  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglott,  and  has  no  title  page  of  its  own, 
the  only  superscription  being  amn  Np''n"'T  printed  over  the 
first  chapter  of  Matthew.  In  the  text  are  not  only  the  Syrian 
sections,  but  our  present  chapters,  and  in  the  margin  the  num- 
ber of  the  separate  verses.  At  the  end  are  various  readings 
collected  by  Francis  Eapheleng  from  the  cod.  Coloniensis 
already  mentioned. 

5.  In  1575  the  same  text,  also  printed  in  Hebrew  letters, 
was  issued  in  16rao  by  Plantin,  with  Rapheleng's  various 
readings. 

6.  The  next  edition  is  that  of  Paris,  1584  4to,  promoted 
by  Le  Fevre.  This  contains  the  Greek  text,  the  Vulgate,  the 
Syriac,  and  a  Latin  version  of  it.  The  Syriac  is  written  with 
Hebrew  letters,  but  without  points  ;  and  the  Latin  version  is 
interlinear.  Here  the  books  and  passages  not  belonging  to 
the  Peshito  are  omitted  as  in  the  preceding  editions ;  but  they 
stand  in  the  Greek  text  and  in  the  Vulgate  columns.  There 
is  however  an  interpolation  at  the  end  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans. 

7.  The  text  of  Elias  Hutter  in  his  edition  of  the  New 
Testament  in  twelve  languages,  1599,  Nurnberg,  folio,  is  of 

*  De  Novi  Testament!  versione  Syriaca  autiqua,  &c.  p.  219. 


174  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM, 

no  use  to  the  critic.     The  books  wanting  were  here  translated 
into  Syriac. 

8.  Of  more  importance  is  the  edition  of  Martin  Trost,  pub- 
lished at  Cothen  in  1621  4to,  in  the  Syriac  character.  It 
does  not  appear  that  the  editor  employed  MSS.,  but  he  added 
a  useful  list  of  various  readings  gathered  out  of  preceding  edi- 
tions. A  list  of  readings  in  w^hich  the  editions  of  Trost  and 
Plantin  differ  from  Widmanstadt,  is  given  by  Hirt. 

9.  In  the  ninth  and  tenth  volumes  of  the  Paris  Polyglott 
we  have  the  Peshito  among  other  versions.  Here  it  is  re- 
printed from  the  Antwerp  Polyglott.  But  the  books  which 
the  version  properly  wants  are  also  printed  from  the  editions 
of  De  Dieu  (the  Apocalypse),  and  Pococke  (the  four  Catholic 
epistles).  Gabriel  Sionita  was  the  person  who  superintended 
the  work  ;  and  it  is  thought  that  he  introduced  various  altera- 
tions and  emendations.  It  was  he  that  appended  the  vowel- 
points  where  they  were  not  before,  from  his  own  judgment  or 
from  MSS.  Michaelis  has  expressed  a  strong  suspicion  that 
the  text  was  altered  from  mere  conjecture  ;  at  least  many  pas- 
sages in  the  book  of  Revelation  differ  from  the  edition  of  De 
Dieu  without  any  reason  being  assigned.  Gabriel  has  been 
much  blamed  by  Michaelis  and  others  for  his  system  of  vowel- 
points,  in  the  arrangement  of  which  he  has  abided  by  strict 
analogy,  whence  modern  grammarians  have  derived  their  rules. 
But  this  analogy  may  have  been  founded  on  the  authority  of 
MSS.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  it  rested  merely  on  his 
own  conjecture.  The  researches  of  Wiseman  have  gone  far 
to  shew  that  he  followed  ayicient  tradition.  And  then  it  should 
be  remembered  that  De  Dieu's  MS.  of  the  Apocalypse  had 
many  blemishes,  so  that  the  departure  of  Gabriel's  text  from 
it  may  have  been  derived  from  the  testimony  of  another  MS. 

10.  From  the  Paris  Polyglott  the  Peshito  was  transferred 
to  the  fifth  volume  of  the  London  (1655).  Although  Walton 
says  in  his  Prolegomena,  after  enumerating  the  defects  of  the 


THE    PESHITO.  175 

Paris  edition,  that  he  endeavoured  to  supply  them  all  in  his 
Polyglott,  "  non  ex  proprits  conjecturis  sed  secundum  exemplaria 
MS8.  qum'um  quaedam  antiquisswia^  reliqua  ex  authenticis  apud 
Syros  codicihus  descripta  sunt  •'''  yet  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
this  language  should  not  be  restricted  to  the  Old  Testament. 
No  MS.  of  the  New  Testament  is  mentioned.  The  story  of 
the  adulteress  in  John  vii.  53 — viii.  11  was  added  from  a  MS. 
belonging  to  Ussher,  which  however  contains  the  Philoxenian 
or  later  Syriac  version,  not  the  Peshito,  and  where  it  is  added 
in  the  margin.  "  The  editors  therefore  of  the  London  Poly- 
glott have  printed  as  a  part  of  the  Old  Syriac  version,  a  passage 
which  is  found  only  in  the  later  copies  of  the  New.  It  is 
wanting  not  only  in  the  Peshito,  but  in  the  genuine  copies  of 
the  Philoxenian,  and  was  added  in  the  latter  as  a  marginal 
scholion,  the  translation  being  ascribed  in  Ridley's  codex 
Barsalibaei  to  Mar  Abba,  in  the  Paris  manuscript  to  one  Paul 
a  monk."* 

The  sixth  volume  contains  the  collection  of  various  readings 
made  by  Trost.  In  this  edition  the  example  of  the  Paris  editors 
was  unhappily  imitated  in  printing  the  four  Catholic  epistles 
which  the  genuine  Peshito  wants ;  and  also  the  Apocalypse. 

11.  A  better  edition  is  that  of  Gutbier,  Hamburg,  1664 
8vo,  who  had  two  MSS.  The  basis  of  the  text  was  that  of 
Trost,  but  he  also  compared  other  editions.  For  the  punctua- 
tion, which  differs  much  from  that  of  the  Paris  Polyglott,  he 
appeals  to  the  authority  of  a  MS.  borrowed  from  L'Empereur 
at  Leyden.  He  inserted  the  narrative  in  John  vii.  53 — viii. 
11  out  of  the  London  Polyglott,  and  1  John  v.  7  from  Tre- 
mellius's  translation  of  it  into  Syriac.  These  were  serious 
blemishes.  A  glossary  is  appended ;  as  also  a  collection  of 
various  readings  from  preceding  editions,  and  critical  notes 
containing  examples  of  varying  punctuation,  &c. 

12.  Passing  over  other  editions,  we  proceed  to  that  pub- 

*  Notes  to  Michaelis's  Introduction,  vol.  ii.  p.  545. 


176  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

lished  at  Rome  for  the  use  of  the  Maronites  from  the  Propaganda 
press,  in  two  folio  volumes,  Eome  1703,  The  first  volume 
contains  the  gospels;  the  second,  the  Acts,  Catholic  and 
Pauline  epistles.  The  book  is  a  diglott,  containing  in  two 
columns  the  Peshito  text,  and  an  Arabic  version  in  Syrian 
characters,  or  the  Carshuni  text.  The  work  was  prepared 
under  the  editorship  of  Faustus  Naironus  Banensis  Maronita, 
who  gives  an  account  of  it  in  the  preface.  It  would  appear 
that  the  text  is  derived  from  a  MS.  belonging  to  the  library 
of  the  College  of  Maronites.  This  MS.  was  a  transcript  made 
by  Antonius  Sionita  in  1611,  after  three  MSS.  belonging  to 
the  College  of  Maronites.  The  four  Catholic  epistles  as  well 
as  the  Apocalypse  are  given  in  the  very  same  text,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  as  in  the  original  editions  of  Pococke  and  De  Dieu. 
Luke  xxii.  17,  18,  and  the  story  of  the  adulteress  are  inserted, 
but  marked  with  an  asterisk  at  the  beginning  and  end.  Acts 
xxviii.  29,  and  1  John  v.  7  are  wanting.  In  Acts  xx.  28  the 
text  has  "the  church  of  Christ."  There  is  good  reason  for 
believing  that  the  editor  has  introduced  readings  into  the  text 
arbitrarily^  and  without  authority.  An  example  of  this  occurs 
in  Matt,  xxvii.  35,  where  the  words  are  taken  from  Widman- 
stadt's  notes.  Dr.  Lee,  who  collated  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Matthew's  gospel,  has  shewn  that  the  text  could  not  have  been 
taken  from  ancient  and  accurate  MSS.  There  are  also  many 
typographical  errata.  The  vowel  points  too  are  omitted  in 
many  words,  even  in  the  case  of  proper  names ;  and  they  are 
inserted  according  to  no  fixed  rule.* 

13.  One  of  the  best  editions,  which  has  found  much  and 
deserved  favour  is  that  published  at  Leyden  in  1709  4to,  by 
Schaaf  and  Leusden.  The  title  is.  Novum  Domini  nostri  Jesu 
Christi  Testamentum  Syriacum^  cum  versione  Latina  ;  cura  et 
studio  Johannis  Leusden  et  Caroli  Schaaf  editum.  Ad  omnes 
editiones  diligenter  recensitum  ;  et  variis  lectionihus  magno  lahore 
"^   Prolegomeua  to  Bagster's  Polyglott,  p.  42. 


THE    PESHITO.  177 

collectisj  adornatum.  Lugduni  Batavorum,  &c.  1708  (or  as 
more  copies  have)  1709. 

Leusden  died  when  the  work  had  proceeded  as  far  as  Luke 
XV.  20.  And  as  the  two  editors  were  of  different  sentiments 
in  regard  to  the  arrangement  of  the  points,  Schaaf,  who  had 
deferred  to  the  judgment  of  the  other,  followed  liis  own  better 
judgment  from  Luke  xviii.  27  to  the  end. 

The  text  is  chiefly  taken  from  the  Vienna  edition,  to  which 
Schaaf  joined  the  Paris  and  London  Polyglotts,  the  punctua- 
tion being  conformed  to  the  latter.  This  is  manifest  from  the 
preface,  where  we  read  : — ''  Etut  haec  nostra  editioeo  accuratior 
•p'odiret  in  publicum,  ad  omnes  editiones,  quotquot  antea  pro- 
dierantj  dlligentissime  recensui.  Et  ex  its  maximae  utilitatis 
mihi  fuere  Viennensis,  Parisiensis  ^najor,  et  Anglicana :  Vien- 
nensis  cum  sit  omnium  prima  et  originaria,  mihi  primaria 
norma  fuit^  Thus  the  text  is  an  eclectic  one,  formed  from 
those  of  preceding  editions  without  the  assistance  of  MSS. 
The  editor  however  was  wrong  in  taking  into  the  text  from 
the  editions  of  Tremellius  and  Trost  such  portions  as  are  not 
in  the  oldest  editions,  as  the  four  Catholic  epistles  already- 
mentioned,  and  the  Apocalypse ;  1  John  v.  7 ;  John  vii. 
53 — viii.  11.  He  has  also  interpolated  in  other  places,  as  Acts 
viii.  37,  XV.  34. 

The  text  is  divided  into  the  ordinary  chapters  and  verses, 
and  the  order  of  the  books  is  that  followed  in  the  usual  edi- 
tions. It  is  beautifully  and  accurately  printed,  with  a  Latin 
version  occupying  a  parallel  column.  As  to  the  various  read- 
ings at  the  end  extending  through  one  hundred  pages,  they  are 
not  of  much  importance,  because  they  are  all  selected  from 
printed  editions,  and  not  from  MSS.  The  work  is  generally 
accompanied  by  Schaaf 's  Lexicon  Concordantiale,  in  a  similar 
quarto  volume,  which  appeared  at  the  same  time  and  place, 
and  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  as  to  completeness. 

In   1717  was  published   a  second  edition  at  Ley  den,    at 

VOL.  II.  N 


178  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

least  the  title-page  bears  on  it,  "  Secunda  editio  a  mendis  pur- 
gatar  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  very  same  impres- 
sion with  the  title-page  a  little  altered,  for  the  preface  is  dated 
like  the  other,  1708. 

14.  In  1816  another  edition  was  published  for  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  4to,  designed  for  distribution  in 
the  East,  with  the  title  in  Latin,  Novum  Testamentum  Syriace 
denuo  recognitum  atque  ad  fidem  codicum  manuscrvptorum  emen- 
datum.  On  the  opposite  page  is  another  title  in  the  Estrangelo 
character. 

This  edition  was  superintended  as  far  as  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  by  Dr.  Buchanan,  and  completed  by  Dr.  Lee.  It 
was  intended  for  the  use  of  the  Syrian  Christians  in  the  East. 

According  to  Lee's  own  statement,  printed  in  the  notes  to 
Wait's  translation  of  Hug's  Introduction,  he  used  the  following : 

1.  A  MS.  brought  by  Buchanan  from  Travancore,  now 
deposited  in  the  University  Library  at  Cambridge.  Dr.  Lee 
thinks  it  500  years  old. 

2.  Another  MS.  in  the  same  library,  mentioned  in  Ridley's 
Dissertatio  de  Syriacarum  Novi  Foederis  Versionum  indole^  &c. 
(p.  46.) 

3.  The  collations  of  two  ancient  MSS.  of  the  gospels  in 
the  Bodleian,  published  at  Oxford  by  R.  Jones,  1805  4to. 

4.  The  collations  contained  in  Ridley's  dissertation,  in  the 
New  Testament  of  Wetstein,  and  the  edition  of  Schaaf. 

5.  The  citations  found  in  the  works  of  Ephrem  the  Syrian. 

6.  A  MS.  belonging  to  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  containing  reading 
lessons. 

The  editor  himself  also  states  that  along  with  these  he 
had  continual  reference  to  other  ancient  versions  and  the  Greek 
MSS.  His  own  words  are  in  another  place : — "  Hoc  tamen 
dixerim^  nidlam  sane  lectionem  in  textu  Jiujus  editionis  reperiri 
posse,  nisi  quae  et  in  codicihus  ipsorum  Syrorum  reperiatur, 
honitatisque  suae  speciem  demum  probahilem  prae  seferaty'^ 
*  Prolegomena  to  Bagster's  Polyglott,  p.  44. 


THE    PESHITU.  179 

The  basis  of  the  text  is  Schaaf 's,  and  the  vowel-points 
agree  with  the  mode  followed  by  that  editor.  The  Greek 
vowels  only  are  used.  The  points  Ribui,  the  lineola  occultans, 
Rucoch,  and  Kushoi  are  also  employed.  The  text  is  divided 
into  lessons,  with  headings  in  Syriac  specifying  the  feast  day 
or  Sunday  on  which  each  is  to  be  read  according  to  the  usage 
of  the  Jacobite  Christians  in  Syria.  Our  chapters  are  also 
marked  partly  in  the  text  and  partly  in  the  margin  in  Syriac 
numerals,  while  the  common  verses  are  noted  in  the  margin 
in  the  ordinary  numerals.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  text  is 
very  accurately  printed. 

In  examining  several  prominent  passages  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing : — 1  John  V.  7  is  wanting,  and  no  note  is  given  at  the 
place.  The  story  of  the  adulteress  in  John  vii.  53 — viii.  11,  is 
given  in  the  text,  but  between  ruled  lines,  with  a  heading 
at  the  commencement,  "  This  lesson  respecting  the  sinful 
woman  is  not  in  the  Peshito."  To  Matt,  xxvii.  35,  there  is  a 
note  stating  "in  some  Greek  copies  is  added  here"  followed 

by  ha  rrXTjPojdf kXt^^ov  in  Syriac.     Luke  xxii.  17, 

18,  are  put  in  a  parenthesis.  Acts  viii.  37  is  thrown  into 
a  note.  Acts  xv.  34  is  put  in  a  note.  To  Acts  xviii.  6  is  the 
note — "  In  Greek  copies  we  find  these  words,  '  your  blood  be 
upon  your  head.' "  At  Acts  xx.  28  we  have  the  note,  ^'  In 
other  copies  there  is  in  this  place,  '  of  the  Messiah.' "  Acts 
xxviii.  29  is  put  in  a  note.  At  1  Cor.  v.  8  there  is  this  note, 
"  In  some  copies  there  is  in  this  place  1;  ,>./!)/=^n." 

It  has  been  shewn  by  Lee  that  the  reading  in  his  edition, 
and  indeed  in  all  others,  viz.  1^-JiQ>^,  is  not  a  Nestorian 
reading  exclusively,  because  the  Jacobites  as  well  as  the  Nes- 
torians  use  fermented  bread  to  the  present  day,  as  we  learn 
from  Asseman.* 

Attention  has  been  directed  both  by  Hug  and  Lee  to 
Heb,  ii.  9,  which  has  a  characteristic  reading  of  the  Jaco- 
*  Prolegomena,  &c.  p.  44. 


180  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

bites,  according  to  the  former  critic.  In  Schaaf's  edition,  and 
as  Hug  states,  in  all  printed  editions  and  MSS.  the  reading- 
is  "  for  God  himself  by  his  grace  tasted  death  for  all."  But 
in  the  edition  before  us,  the  words  are  "  but  he  himself,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  tasted  death  for  all,"  and  so  it  is  in  the 
Malabar  MS.  This  agrees  with  the  Greek,  and  shews  no 
improper  alteration  of  the  original  after  the  doctrinal  tenets 
of  the  Jacobites.  Dr.  Lee  has  also  alluded  in  particular  to 
another  reading  which  he  deems  of  great  moment.  Acts 
XX.  28  "  church  of  God,"  found  in  the  Malabar  MS.,  in  the 
Bodleian  (Dawk.  2),  and  in  the  Vatican  one  examined  by 
Adler.  Accordingly  he  has  introduced  it  into  the  text  of  his 
edition ;  and  without  doubt  it  is  ancient,  having  as  good  a 
claim  to  its  place  in  the  text  as  many  readings  in  Widman- 
stadt's  edition. 

Various  false  statements  have  been  made  about  this  edi- 
tion, such  as,  that  the  editor  appeals  to  the  Greek  as  autho- 
rity ;  that  his  aim  was  not  to  give  such  an  edition  as  would 
be  valuable  to  the  critic ;  that  the  readings  have  been  derived 
in  part  from  Griesbach's  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament ;  and 
that  in  the  numbers  and  titles  prefixed  to  the  divisions  or 
sections  there  are  an  incredible  number  of  errors  which  have 
been  rectified  in  some  copies  by  printed  pieces  of  paper  pasted 
over  the  erroneous  readings.  We  have  the  very  best  autho- 
rity for  saying,  that  such  reckless  assertions  are  utterly  untrue. 
The  editor  does  not  appeal  to  the  Greek  as  authority,  nor  was 
the  Greek  ever  employed  by  him  as  such.  No  alteration 
was  ever  made  on  the  authority  of  any  Greek  reading  in  any 
edition  ;  nor  was  a  single  word  changed  without  a  preponder- 
ance of  authority  for  it  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Syrians.  The 
intention  of  the  editor  was  also  to  give  to  the  Syrians  a  good 
and  true  copy  of  their  text^  and  therefore  he  rested  on  no 
single  authority  for  any  reading.  Nor  can  any  thing  faulty 
be  found  in  the  readings  at  the  heads  of  the  sections.     They 


THE   PESHITO.  181 

are  very  correctly  printed ;  and  the  bits  of  pasted  paper  have 
nothing  to  do  with  their  faulty  character.  The  fact  of  the 
case  is,  that  when  the  Bible  Society  thought  of  sending  the 
edition  to  the  Syrians  of  Mesopotamia  as  well  as  those  of 
India,  the  editor  suggested  that  the  headings  of  their  sections 
should  be  introduced  for  their  convenience,  for  they  mark  the 
Sunday  readings  of  their  churches.  The  headings  were  faith- 
fully inserted  accordingly  from  the  editio  princeps  of  Wid- 
manstadt.  After  a  while  however,  some  one  thought  he  dis- 
covered various  particulars  stated  in  these  headings  savouring 
of  heterodoxy,  and  therefore  a  person  was  employed  to  paste 
bits  of  paper  over  them  all,  as  it  would  seem.  But  they  are 
not  at  all  faulty.  They  are  connected  with  the  rituals  of  the 
Syrians,  and  generally  refer  to  some  fast  or  festival  of  their 
chm-ch.  Thus  in  Matt.  i.  1 — The  first  day  of  the  loeek  hefwe 
the  nativity.  Verse  18.  The  revelation  of  Joseph  (made  to  him). 
ii.  13.  Tlie  morning  of  the  slaughter  of  the  infants,  ii.  19.  The 
offering  of  the  slaughter  of  the  infants,  iii.  1 .  The  feast  of  the 
Epiphany,  iv.  1.  The  first  day  of  the  loeeh  of  the  entering  in  of 
Lent  and  the  offering  of  the  forty  (days  of  Lent).  Here 
is  an  eiTor  of  the  press  in  one  letter  ]o5ao  for  \cih(id-  iv.  12. 
The  first  day  of  the  week  after  the  Epiphany.  On  the  whole, 
every  possible  care  was  taken  by  the  editor  to  make  the  edi- 
tion correct ;  and  his  labour  was  most  successful.  Conscious 
as  he  is  of  this,  it  is  no  wonder  that  he  should  affirm  "  It 
is  very  strange  that  I  should  thus  be  vilified  by  perfect  and 
malicious  falsehoods."*  But  his  text  was  highly  esteemed 
and  welcomed  by  such  scholars  as  Gesenius  and  Roediger  at 
Halle. 

15.  A   later  edition  was  published  at   London   in    1828 
12mo,   by  the  Messrs.  Bagster,  under  the  editorial  superin- 
tendence of  Greenfield.      The  editor  prefixed  a  brief  Syriac 
preface  containing  at   the  end   some  account  of  the  edition 
*  Private  letter  to  the  author. 


182  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

itself.  "  This  edition,"  says  he,  "  has  been  printed  from 
the  Holy  Scriptures  in  Syriac  which  were  published  by  J. 
Albertus  Widmanstadius  and  Moses  Mardaeus  and  by  L.  De 
Dieu  and  E.  Pococke.  The  points  which  are  wanting  in  these 
editions  have  been  supplied  from  the  edition  that  was  printed 
in  London  in  1816  above  mentioned.  From  comparison  with 
that  edition  many  various  readings  have  been  procured, 
which  are  placed  in  a  table  at  the  end  of  the  volume.  But 
when  a  various  reading  was  required  to  complete  the  sense 
or  preserve  the  number  of  the  verses,  it  has  been  thrown 
into  its  place  and  included  in  brackets  like  these,  [  ]. 
These  marks  are  also  found  in  the  passages  which  were  defec- 
tive in  the  Catholic  epistles  or  in  the  Revelation  of  John, 
but  were  supplied  by  E.  Pococke  and  L.  De  Dieu,"  &c. 

Here  we  may  remark  that  the  editor  does  not  profess  to 
give  all  the  various  readings  existing  between  his  text  and 
that  of  the  Bible  Society  edition.  Neither  does  he  profess  to 
enclose  in  brackets  what  is  so  enclosed  in  Lee's  edition,  nor 
to  put  either  in  the  text  or  table  at  the  end  what  the  latter 
edition  has  in  the  text  or  in  the  notes.  Hence  no  charge  of 
inconsistency  can  be  justly  urged  against  him.  He  has  done 
all  that  his  preface  proposes  without  falsifying  any  statement, 
or  failing  to  do  what  is  said  to  be  done.  And  yet  the 
memory  of  the  learned  editor  has  been  injuriously  assailed 
on  this  point — assailed  however  from  ignorance.  His  preface 
has  been  mistranslated,  and  on  the  ground  of  such  mistransla- 
tion he  has  been  blamed  for  not  strictly  adhering  to  what  he 
affirms ! 

It  has  only  a  Syriac  title,  partly  in  Estrangelo,  and  partly 
in  the  usual  character. 

This  edition  is  peculiarly  valuable  as  it  enables  us  to  see 
exactly  the  text  of  Widmanstadt.  All  additions  to  the  text  as 
there  printed,  are  so  marked  as  to  be  readily  distinguished. 
We  observe  that  1  John  v.  7  is  put  in   brackets.     So  also 


THE    PESHITO.  183 

Acts  viii.  37;  xv.  35;  xxviii.  29,  are  inserted  in  brackets. 
The  editor  has  faithfully  adhered  to  the  statement  made  in  his 
preface,  as  will  be  seen  by  comparing  together  what  he  really 
says  with  the  table  of  various  readings  at  the  end,  consisting  of 
more  than  seventeen  pages,  the  London  edition  of  1816,  and 
Widmanstadt's.  As  a  manual  edition  for  the  use  of  students, 
it  surpasses  any  other  modern  one.  The  vowel  points  are  the 
same  as  in  that  of  1816. 

The  following  versions  were  made  from  the  Peshito : — 

1.  An  Arabic  version  of  the  Acts  and  Pauline  epistles  with 
1  Peter,  1  John,  and  James.  These  were  printed  from  a 
Leyden  MS.  and  published  by  Erpenius  at  that  place 
1616  4to. 

2.  The  Persian  translation  of  the  gospels  contained  in  the 
fifth  volume  of  the  London  Polyglott. 

3.  Adler  found  in  the  Vatican  Library  an  Arabic  para- 
phrase of  some  lessons  taken  from  Paul's  epistles  written  along 
with  the  Peshito,  and  taken  from  it.  The  codex  is  numbered 
xxiii.  (Cod.  Syr.  Vat.) ;  and  Adler  gave  a  specimen  of  it  from 
the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  with  a  Latin  translation.* 

In  1 829  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  published 
an  edition  of  the  gospels,  in  quarto,  for  the  use  of  the  Nestorian 
Syrian  churches  in  Mesopotamia.  The  title  is,  ^Q_i.XycJo|?  |oAd 
U~N.i.  >  V)  <iQ,«_.  ^j^)  t-«-r^.  The  text  was  taken  from  one 
MS.  only,  which  Wolff  brought  from  the  neighbourhood 
of  Mosul.  It  was  edited  by  T.  Pell  Piatt,  Esq.  A  new 
fount  of  type  was  made  for  this  edition,  imitating  as  nearly  as 
may  be  the  Nestorian  Estrangelo  handwriting.  It  has  the 
headings  of  the  several  lessons  according  to  the  Nestorian 
ritual,  many  of  them  coiTesponding  with  those  in  Lee's  edition 
of  1816,  and  is  on  the  whole  very  correctly  printed.  We 
believe  that  the  text  has  not  been  collated. 

In  1848  the  four  gospels  were  printed  from  a  Syriac  MS. 
*  Adler's  N.  T.  versiones  Syriacae  denuo  examinatae,  pp.  27-29. 


184  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

in  the  British  Museum  by  Rev.  W.  Cureton.  The  volume, 
which  is  in  quarto,  is  entitled,  "  Quatuor  evangeliorum  Syriace, 
7-ecensioms  antiquissimae,  atque,  in  occidente  adhuc  ignotae  quod 
superest :  e  codice  vetustissimo  nitriensi  emit  et  vulgavit 
Guilielmus  Guretonr  An  English  translation  with  some  ac- 
count of  tlie  MS.  is  in  preparation,  and  therefore  the 
text,  though  printed^  has  not  been  published,  for  the  learned 
editor  intends  to  issue  the  whole  together.  The  text  of 
this  edition  differs  considerably  from  the  Peshito  hitherto 
current,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  taken  from  a  very- 
old  source.  The  text  is  peculiar,  and  sometimes  agrees  with 
D.  contrary  to  all  ancient  MSS.  It  shews  as  far  as  one  MS. 
can  do  so  the  Greek  text  of  an  early  period.  The  greater  part 
of  John  is  wanting.  All  that  remains  of  Mark  is  only  a  few 
verses  at  the  end  of  the  gospel.  Luke,  which  is  fourth  in  order, 
is  also  defective ;  but  not  to  the  same  extent  as  John.  The 
Lord's  prayer  in  Matthew  has  the  doxology;  though  not 
exactly  in  the  common  Greek  form.     It  is  shorter  here. 


CHAPTER   XL 


THE  PHILOXENIAN  VERSION. 

Another  Sjriac  version  contains  all  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  except  perhaps  the  Apocalypse,  and  is  commonly 
called  the  Philoxenian  or  later  Syriac,  as  distinguished  from 
the  Peshito  or  old  Syriac.  It  is  called  Philoxenian  from 
Philoxenus  or  Mar  Xenayas,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  or  Mabug 
in  Syria  from  A.D.  488  to  518 ;  at  whose  instigation  the  work 
was  executed  by  Polycarp  his  rural  bishop,  in  the  year  508. 
It  is  difficult  to  discover  the  motive  which  prompted  Philoxenus 
to  procm-e  the  version  in  question.  Ridley  is  of  opinion  that 
the  great  variety  and  corruption  of  the  copies  of  the  Peshito 
was  the  leading  motive  which  led  him  to  promote  a  new  ver- 
sion.* This,  as  Michaelis  has  observed,  is  an  unfounded 
supposition.  More  likely  is  the  conjecture  of  Michaelis  him- 
self,! with  which  Bertholdt  agrees,  viz.  that  he  wished  to  have 
a  more  literal  version  than  the  Peshito — one  that  should  be  an 
exact  copy  of  the  Greek  text  in  Syriac,  so  that  the  original 
might  be  seen  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  vernacular  language 
of  the  country.  With  this  Michaelis  unites  another  motive 
not  so  laudable,  that  Philoxenus  hoped  to  promote  the  religious 
tenets  of  the  Mouophysite  party  to  which  he  belonged,  by 
obtaining  new  arguments  from  a  new  translation.     The  latter 

*  De  Syriacarum  Novi  Foederis  versionum  indole  atque  usu,  &c. 
Sectio  X.  p.  290,  et  seq.  in  Semler's  Wetstenii  Libelli  ad  Crisin,  &c. 
t  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  by  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  p.  64. 


186  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 

motive  is  that  by  which  Eichhorn  and  Hug  believe  him  to 
have  been  influenced.  He  wanted,  as  they  think,  a  church 
version  for  the  purpose  of  advancing  Monophysite  doctrines, 
or  at  least  of  keeping  himself  and  his  party  as  distinct  as  he 
could  from  other  sects.  It  is  not  likely  that  Philoxenus  him- 
self had  a  critical  object  in  view,  as  Bertholdt  believes.* 
More  probable  is  it  that  his  object  was  of  a  less  commendable 
character;  and  that  he  meant  the  version  in  some  way  to 
subserve  the  advancement  of  his  party. 

In  A.D.  616  it  was  revised  by  Thomas  of  Harclea  or 
Harkel  in  Palestine,  afterwards  a  monk  of  the  monastery  of 
Taril,  and  subsequently  bishop  of  Mabug.  The  revision  was 
made  by  Thomas  in  the  monastery  of  the  Antonians  or  monks 
of  St.  Anthony  at  Alexandria. 

In  the  postscript  to  the  gospels  which  most  MSS.  of  the 
version  have,  it  is  said — "  This  is  the  book  of  the  four  holy 
evangelists  which  was  turned  out  of  the  Greek  language  into 
Syriac  with  great  diligence  and  much  labour,  first  in  the  city 
of  Mabug  in  the  year  819  of  Alexander  of  Macedon  (508),  in 
the  days  of  the  pious  Mar  Philoxenus,  confessor,  bishop  of  that 
city.  But  it  was  afterwards  collated  with  much  diligence  by 
me,  poor  Thomas,  by  the  help  of  two  (other  MSS.  have  three) 
highly  approved  and  accurate  Greek  MSS.,  in  Antonia,  of  the 
great  city  Alexandria,  in  the  holy  monastery  of  the  Antonians. 
It  was  again  written  out  and  collated  in  the  aforesaid  place  in 
the  year  927  of  the  same  Alexander  (616),  in  the  fourth  indiction. 
How  much  toil  and  diligence  I  spent  upon  it  (the  book  of  the 
gospels)  and  its  companions  (the  other  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment) the  Lord  alone  knows,  who  will  reward  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  works  in  his  just  and  righteous  judgment,  in  which 
may  we  be  counted  worthy  of  his  mercy. — Amen."t     Thomas 

*  Einleitung,  vol.  ii.  p.  654. 
t  Translated  from  the  postscript  to  the  gospels  printed  from  Ridley'.'; 
MS.  in  White's  edition,  vol.  ii.  p.  561,  et  sq(\. 


THE    PHILOXENIAN    VERSION.  187 

collated  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles  with  one  Greek  MS.,  as 
the  subscription  to  them  relates.  The  Pauline  epistles  he 
collated  with  two ;  for  two  are  cited  in  the  margin,  ex.  gr. 
Philip,  iii.  20;  Eph.  ii.  16;  Romans  viii.  27. 

An  important  word,  on  which  the  history  of  the  version 
greatly  depends  is  -cioZ  in  the  preceding  postscript,  meaning 
again.  According  to  Michaelis  and  Storr  it  means  a  second 
collation  or  revision.  Eichhorn  however  explains  it,  that  is  to 
say  J  the  second  time^  resuming  thus  what  had  been  said  in  the 
previous  context.*  White  translates  it  Deinde.  One  thing 
is  tolerably  clear,  viz.  that  the  edition  of  616  made  at  Alex- 
andria, did  not  proceed  from  an  unknown  editor,  being  different 
from  a  collation  previously  made  by  Thomas  of  Harkel,  but 
that  it  proceeded  from  Thomas  of  Harkel  himself;  for  Bar 
Hebraeus  expressly  states  thus  much.  The  editions  of  Thomas 
of  Harkel  and  that  of  616  are  identical,  contrary  to  what 
Michaelis  believed. 

In  modern  times,  Bernstein  propounded  a  new  view,  viz. 
that  the  Harclean  revision  was  not  the  amended  Philoxenian 
but  another  Syriac  translation.  For  this  he  relies  on  the 
preface  to  the  Horreum  Mysteriorum  of  Gregory  Bar  Hebraeus 
where  the  words  in  point  are,  as  he  translates  them, — "  et 
redditum  est  [N.  T.)  tertio  Alexandrian,  opera  pii  Thomae 
Gharhlensis^  in  coenohio  sancto  Antonianorum.^^  It  is  thus  called 
the  third  from  the  Peshito,  the  Philoxenian  or  Polycarpian 
being  the  second.  When  therefore  the  word  lA£i.£ilD  is  applied, 
it  means  edition  in  the  sense  of  version.^  because  Bar  Hebraeus 
calls  it  the  third  in  reference  to  the  two  preceding  versions. 
Besides  these  particulars,  Bernstein  refers  to  the  marginal 
readings  of  a  Vatican  MS.  described  by  Wiseman,  (CLiii.) 
where  the  Karkaphensian  monks  cite  a  few  passages  from  the 
Philoxenian  version.  As  these  places  do  not  agree  with  the 
corresponding  parts  of  the  Philoxenian  text  printed  by  White, 
*  Einleitung,  vol.  iv.  pp.  473,  474. 


188  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Bernstein  concludes  that  the  true  PMloxenian  is  meant  as  it 
proceeded  from  Polycarp  himself,  and  not  the  work  made  or 
revised  by  Thomas.  He  supposes  that  these  are  the  only 
remaining  fragments  of  the  Philoxenian,  which  is  but  once 
alluded  to  by  Bar  Hebraeus  in  the  preface  to  his  Horreum 
Mysteriorum,  is  never  quoted  in  the  course  of  his  commentary, 
and  must  therefore  have  been  supplanted  at  that  time  by  the 
text  of  Thomas.* 

This  reasoning,  however  plausible,  will  not  bear  examina- 
tion. The  postscript  to  the  gospels  already  quoted  plainly 
alludes  to  a  revision  of  the  Philoxenian  by  Thomas,  not 
another  translation.  Gregory  himself  speaks  less  ambiguous- 
ly in  other  places  than  he  does  in  the  preface  to  his  Horreum 
Mysteriorum  on  which  Bernstein  relies.  Thus,  in  a  pas- 
sage of  his  Chronicon,  he  says  of  Thomas,  according  to 
Bernstein's  own  Latin  version,  t  ut  sacrwn  evangelii  codicem 
ac  reliquos  Novi  Testamenti  lihros  emendatione  valde  probata 
et  accurata  correctos  redderet  j^ost  priinam  interpretationem,  &c.  ; 
and  in  another  place,  Thomas  Charklensis,  qui  j>^if^i(^'^  Novi 
Testamenti  EMENDAVIT,  versionem  quam  (transtulit)  condidit 
Mar  Philoxenus  Mahugensis,  &c.  \  As  to  the  five  places  not 
agreeing  with  White's  printed  edition,  too  much  has  been 
made  of  them.  They  are,  Komans  vi.  20 ;  1  Cor.  i.  28 ; 
2  Cor.  vii.  13 ;  2  Cor.  x.  4;  Eph.  vi.  12.  §  The  first  differs 
by  the  transposition  of  a  word ;  the  second  differs  in  one  word ; 
the  third  disagTces  only  in  the  vowel  points ;  the  fom'th  has 
oooi  ]J  for  White's  Q-^;  the  fifth  changes  one  word  for 
another.  Surely  these  slight  changes  are  not  sufficient  to 
justify  or  corroborate  the  opinion  that  the  marginal  readings  of 

*  De  Charklensi  Novi  Testamenti  translatione  Syriaca  commentatio, 
pp.  3-10. 

t  Assemani  Bibliotheca  Orientalis,  vol.  ii.  p.  411,  and  Bernstein's 
Commentatio,  p.  8.  +  See  Bernstein,  ibid. 

§  See  Wiseman's  Horae  Syriacae,  vol.  i.  pp.  178,  179. 


THE   PHILOXENIAN    VERSION.  189 

the  Vatican  MS.  and  the  edition  printed  by  White  represent 
two  versions.  The  former  are  rather  fragments  of  the  Philox- 
enian  before  Thomas's  revision ;  the  latter  Thomas's  recension 
of  the  very  same.  They  do  not  differ  as  independent  transla- 
tions.* 

It  is  the  work  as  revised  by  Thomas  of  Harkel  that  is 
extant,  and  has  been  printed.  One  MS.  the  codex  Floren- 
tinus,  containing  no  more  than  the  four  gospels  which  Adler 
examined  and  described,t  has  been  thought  to  contain  the  ori- 
ginal edition  which  proceeded  from  Polycarp  himself,  unre- 
vised  by  Thomas  of  Harkel ;  but  this  is  not  certain.  The  text 
of  it  has  not  been  printed. 

The  text  of  the  Philoxenian  as  revised  by  Thomas  is 
furnished  with  obeli  and  asterisks.  Most  of  the  MSS.  too 
have  critical  remarks  and  readings  in  the  margin. 

In  attempting  to  separate  what  belongs  to  Thomas  from 
the  original  edition,  there  has  been  much  conjecture.  Indeed 
it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  clearly  what  we  owe  to  Polycarp 
and  what  to  Thomas  in  the  present  text.  The  departments 
belonging  to  each  cannot  be  certainly  assigned  to  their  respec- 
tive authors.  The  marginal  readings  appended  are  mostly  in 
Greek.  Wetstein  and  White  ascribed  the  critical  signs,  i.  e. 
the  obeli  and  asterisks,  as  well  as  the  remarks  in  the  margin, 
for  the  most  part  to  Thomas.  But  this  opinion  was  rejected, 
because  a  codex  was  found  in  the  Medicean  library  at  Florence 
which  has  not  Thomas's  subscription,  and  yet  is  furnished 
with  these  critical  signs.  It  is  believed  by  Adler  and  others 
that  this  codex  is  a  copy  of  a  MS.  of  the  time  antecedent 
to  the  labours  of  Thomas.  :j:     Hence  the  obeli  and  asterisks 

*  Comp.  Hug.  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  341,  et  seq.  fourth  edition. 

t  Novi  Testamenti  versiones  Syriacae,  Simplex,  Philoxeniana,  et 
Hierosolymitana denuo  examinatae,  &c.  pp.  52-55. 

X  Crederem,  codicem  nostrum  apogi-aphum  esse  antiquioris  Philox- 
enianae  versionis,  a  Thoma  Harclensi  nondum  revisae  et  castigatae." — 
Adler,  p.  55. 


190  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

are  as  early  as  the  time  of  Polycarp,  author  of  the  version.  In 
this  conclusion  Storr,  Hug,  and  De  Wette,  at  least  in  part, 
concur. 

Wliat  was  the  use  of  these  signs?  Here  also  there  is 
much  diversity  of  opinion.  Do  they  mark  the  deviations  of 
the  new  version  from  the  Peshito?  so  thought  Wetstein, 
Storr,  Eichhorn,  and  Griesbach.  Or  were  tliey  designed  to 
shew  the  difference  between  the  Philoxenian  text  and  the 
Greek  MSS.  with  which  it  was  collated  ?  So  thought  White 
and  Bertholdt.  The  latter  is  supported  by  many  examples 
which  White  adduces.  The  former  opinion  is  favoured  by 
various  examples  produced  by  Storr,  such  as  Matt.  xvi.  28 ; 
Mark  ix.  19,  xi.  10,  &c.  But  neither  the  one  nor  the  other 
view  can  be  held  exclusively,  for  examples  support  sometimes 
the  one  and  sometimes  the  other.  Hence  we  must  believe 
that  the  marks  in  question  did  not  all  proceed  from  one  per- 
son at  one  time,  but  from  two  or  more  who  had  different 
objects  in  putting  them  ;  or  else  that  the  one  person  had  no 
one  object  in  view,  but  affixed  them  for  different  purposes ; 
which  however  is  improbable. 

With  regard  to  the  various  readings  and  notes  in  the 
margin,  Storr  and  Eichhorn  assign  them  in  part  to  Polycarp  • 
but  Hug  and  Bertholdt  to  Thomas  alone.  In  favour  of  the 
latter  view,  the  fact  of  the  Medicean  MS.  at  Florence  want- 
ing all  such  marginal  notes  has  been  adduced. 

We  cannot  agree  with  those  who  hold  that  the  critical  signs 
were  altogether  prior  to  Thomas.  They  belonged  to  Polycarp 
in  part ;  but  some  proceeded  from  Thomas.  Too  much  stress 
has  been  laid  by  Hug  on  the  Florentine  MS.  having  them,  as 
if  they  could  not  have  been  put  into  it  by  a  copyist  from  a 
MS.  subsequent  to  Thomas.  Neither  do  we  believe  that  the 
marginal  readings  and  notes  proceeded  wholly  from  Thomas. 
The  fact  that  they  are  not  in  the  same  Medicean  MS.  is  no 
proof  that  they  did  not  proceed  from   Polycarp ;  for  a  tran- 


THE    PHILOXENIAN    VERSION.  191 

scriber  may  have  omitted  them,  though  he  followed  a  copy  of" 
Thomas's  revised  edition.  Hug  adduces  the  marginal  annota- 
tion to  Mark  xi.  10  as  a  proof  that  Thomas  was  the  author  of 
such  notes.*  In  the  text  of  this  place,  after  'n-arfog  ri/ji^uv 
AajSid  follows  an  asterisk  with  the  words  ti^rivri  sv  ougdvu  zal  do^a 
h  u'^iaroigj  and  in  the  margin,  "  non  in  omnibus  exemplaribus 
Graects  invenitur^  neque  in  illo  Mar  Xenajae  ;  in  nonullis  autem 
accuratis^  ut  putamits,  invenimusy  But  Thomas  collated  Alex- 
andrine MSS. ;  and  it  is  very  unlikely  that  he  had  a  MS.  of 
Xenayas's.  Hence  the  annotation  seems  to  belong  to  Poly- 
carp. 

The  character  of  this  version,  which  was  based  on  tlie 
old  Syriac,  is  extreme  literality.  It  was  the  desire  and  endea- 
vour of  the  translator  that  not  a  syllable  of  the  original  should 
be  lost.  Hence  the  Syriac  idiom  has  been  often  sacrificed 
through  rigid  adherence  to  the  original  Greek.  Greek  words 
are  used ;  even  the  Greek  cases  appear ;  the  Greek  article  is 
imitated  by  pronouns ;  Greek  etymology  is  represented  j  and 
Greek  constructions  are  not  unusual.  Oriental  proper  names 
are  also  written  according  to  the  Greek  orthography  in  a 
manner  which  destroys  their  Oriental  etymology.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  slavish  adherence  to  the  minutiae  of  the  original, 
the  style  is  much  inferior  to  that  of  the  old  Syriac.  But  the 
critical  use  of  the  version  is  gTcater  in  proportion  to  its  litera- 
lity. If  we  had  it  as  originally  made  by  Polycarp,  apart  from 
Thomas's  emendations,  it  would  be  much  more  valuable. 
Judging  by  the  Florentine  MS.,  the  corrections  made  by 
Thomas  were  neither  numerous  nor  important.  Adler  says  of 
this  MS.,  contextiis  ah  Hmxlensirecensione parwn  differre  videtur. 
It  is  wholly  improbable  that  he  made  extensive  alterations  in 
the  Philoxenian  document,  thereby  making  a  new  version 
rather  than  a  recension  of  the  text.  All  the  phenomena  are 
against  that  hypothesis.  And  if  Polycarp  himself  had  used 
*  Einleit.  vol.  i.  pp.  335,  336,  fourth  edition. 


192  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

Greek  MSS.  only,  without  the  adoption  of  words  and  phrases 
belonging  to  a  version  or  versions  previously  existing,  his  work 
would  have  been  of  greater  importance.  But  as  it  was  based 
on  the  Peshito,  and  underwent  a  revision  by  Thomas  of  Har- 
kel  a  century  after  it  was  executed,  the  value  is  diminished. 
Yet  it  has  its  use  notwithstanding.  It  exhibits  ancient  read- 
ings entitled  to  attention.  What  is  most  to  be  regretted  is  the 
present  state  of  the  text ;  for  the  critical  signs  have  in  many 
cases  been  dropped ;  the  readings  of  the  text  have  got  into  the 
margin ;  and  those  of  the  margin  into  the  text.  Such  confu- 
sion tends  to  make  a  critic  cautious  in  the  employment  of  it. 

The  marginal  readings  are  perhaps  the  most  valuable  part. 
One  of  the  two  Greek  MSS.  which  Thomas  compared  with  the 
Greek  text  had  considerable  affinity  to  the  Cambridge  MS.  in 
the  gospels  and  Acts.  According  to  Adler's  computation,  the 
marginal  readings  in  the  gospels  coincide  with  the  Cambridge 
MS.  alone  19  times,  with  the  Cambridge  and  Vatican  6  times, 
25  times  with  the  Cambridge  and  several  MSS.  Of  180  mar- 
ginal readings,  130  are  found  in  B.  C.  D.  L.  1,  33,  69,  &c. 
Hence  their  text  belongs  to  the  western  class.* 

If  the  preceding  account  of  the  Philoxenian  be  correct,  it 
is  easy  to  see  how  much  the  summary  statement  of  it  given 
by  Scrivener  is  apt  to  mislead  :  "  It  (the  Philoxenian  Syriac) 
is  in  truth  nothing  but  the  result  of  a  close  collation  of  the 
Peshito  with  two  Greek  MSS.  of  about  the  fifth  century."  f 

The  first  notice  of  this  version  in  modern  times  proceeded 
from  Asseman.  A  more  circumstantial  account  of  it  was  after- 
wards presented  to  the  public  by  Wetstein,  who  collated  a 
MS.  of  it  belonging  to  Glocester  Ridley.  The  latter  had  re- 
ceived it  and  another  from  Amida  (Diarbekr).  But  Wetstein's 
collation  was  necessarily  imperfect,  as  he  only  spent  fourteen 
days  over  the  MS.     Ridley  himself,  at  the  request  of  Michaelis, 

*  De  verss.  Syriacis,  pp.  79-133,  especially  pp.  130,  131,  132. 
t  Supplement  to  the  authorised  English  version,  introduction,  p.  68. 


THE   PHILOXENIAN    VERSION.  193 

afterwards  published  an  important  essay  in  which  he  described 
the  version  with  the  two  copies  of  it  in  his  possession,  and 
corrected  the  mistakes  of  Wetstein  and  Michaelis.*  Some 
years  after,  Storr  discovered  MSS.  of  the  version  at  Paris,  and 
wrote  a  treatise  containing  additional  information  about  it.f 
Six  years  after  Storr's  essay,  Ridley's  MSS.,  which  were  de- 
posited in  the  library  of  New  College,  Oxford,  were  intrusted 
to  Professor  White  that  he  might  publish  the  version  ;  and  it 
appeared  accordingly  in  parts  at  different  times.  \  Professor 
Adler  contributed  still  farther  to  our  acquaintance  with  the 
version  and  MSS.  of  it  by  his  Bihlico-critical  travels^  and  his 
essay  already  mentioned.  He  examined  MSS.  at  Rome  and 
Florence,  describing  one  in  the  latter  place  which  is  supposed 
to  be  peculiarly  important  as  exhibiting  the  version  before  it 
was  revised  by  Thomas.  Since  the  treatises  of  these  critics 
and  the  publication  of  the  work  itself,  nothing  has  been  added 
to  our  real  knowledge  of  the  version. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  none  of  the  MSS.  contains 
any  more  than  the  fom*  gospels  except  White's  Codex  Har- 
clensis  from  which  the  version  was  chiefly  printed.  At  least 
none  in  Europe  is  known  to  possess  any  more  books.  Even 
the  cod.  Harclensis  is  imperfect.  It  wants  the  last  part  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  from  the  twenty-seventh  verse  of  the 
eleventh  chapter  till  the  end.     It  also  wants  the  Apocalypse. 

*  De  Syriacarum  Novi  Foederis  versionum  indole  atque  usu  Disser- 
tatio  :  Philoxenianam  cum  Simplici  e  duobus  pervetustis  codd.  MSS.  ab 
Amida  transmissis  conferente  Glocestro  Ridley,  4to,  1761. 

t  Observationes  super  N.  T.  versionibus  Syriacis,  8vo,  1772. 

X  Sacrorum  Evangeliorum  versio  Syriaca  Philoxeniana,  ex  codd.  MSS. 
Ridleianis  in  Biblioth.  Coll.  Novi  Oxoniensis  repositis,  nunc  primum  edita 
cum  interpretatione  et  annotationibus  Joseph!  White,  &c.  &c.  4to,  1778, 
Tom.  i.  and  ii.  Actuum  Apostolorum  et  Epistolarum  tam  catholicarum 
quam  Paulinarum  versio  Syriaca  Philoxeniana,  ex  codice  MS.  Ridleiano, 
&c.  &c.  Tom.  i.  Actus  Apostolorum  et  epistolas  catholicas  complectens 
4to,  1799.  Tom  ii.  epistolas  Paulinas  complectens,  4to,  1803. 
VOL.    II.  0 


194  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

But  here  a  question  arises,  had  the  Philoxenian  ever  the  Apo- 
calypse ?  In  some  editions  of  the  Peshito,  as  that  of  Leusden 
and  Schaaf,  there  is  a  version  of  the  Apocalypse  which  does 
not  belong  to  the  old  Syriac.  But  its  internal  character  agrees 
with  the  Philoxenian  as  revised  by  Thomas.  This  book  was 
first  printed  by  De  Dieu  from  a  MS.  in  the  University  of  Leyden 
which  formerly  belonged  to  Joseph  Scaliger,  whence  it  was 
afterwards  incorporated  into  the  Paris  and  London  Polyglotts. 
It  is  very  likely  that  it  is  the  Apocalypse  of  Philoxenus,  though 
not  found  in  any  of  the  MSS.  of  his  version  yet  discovered. 
In  minute  peculiarities  it  coincides  with  the  Philoxenian. 
Thus  it  frequently  admits  Greek  words,  imitates  the  Greek 
text  in  the  representation  of  the  article  itself,  chooses  the  same 
Syriac  words  as  in  other  parts  for  the  same  Greek  words.  A 
good  example  may  be  seen  in  Eev.  i.  4-6,  where  the  Greek 
text  is  closely  imitated,  and  every  part  of  the  Greek  article 
expressed  by  ocn  ^cn  ^ojj  ,^  i  \oi,  &c.  There  are,  it  is  true, 
some  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  the  same  words  and  phrases 
are  similarly  rendered  in  the  Philoxenian  and  this  of  the 
Apocalypse,  but  they  do  not  invalidate  the  general  principle. 
Even  the  critical  marks  of  the  Philoxenian  seem  not  to  have 
been  wanting  in  the  Apocalypse,  for  though  the  printed  text 
has  not  been  derived  from  a  MS.  furnished  with  them,  yet  the 
fragment  of  the  Florentine  MS.  which  Adler*  printed  (Apo- 
calypse i.  1-2)  has  an  asterisk  at  the  end  of  it.f 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  subscription  to 
a  Florentine  MS.  of  the  Apocalypse  speaks  of  the  codex  being 
copied  from  a  very  old  autograph,  belonging,  according  to 
report,  to  Thomas  of  Harkel  himself,  and  written  in  622.  J 

*  De  verss.  Syriacis,  p.  78. 

t  See  Eichhorn's  Einleitung,  vol.  iv.  p.  461,  et  seq. 

X  Codex  anno  1582  Romae  descriptus  ab  autographo  pervetusto,  ab 
ipso,  ut  perhibetur,  Thoma  Heracleensi  exarato,  anno  622. — Ridley  de 
Syriacarum,  &c.  p.  46. 


CHAPTER   XII. 


OTHEE    SYRIAC   VERSIONS. 

A  SYKIAC  VERSION  OF  THE  FOUR  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES  WHICH 
WERE  NOT  RECOGNISED  AS  CANONICAL  BY  THE  EARLY 
SYRIAN  CHURCH. 

It  is  remarked  by  Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  in  the  sixth  century, 
that  only  three  catholic  epistles,  one  of  James,  one  of  Peter, 
and  one  of  John  were  found  among-  the  Syrians.  * 

Dionysius  Bar  Salibi  (1166-1171)  bishop  of  Amida,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  t  relates  in  the  preface  to  his  commentary  on 
the  second  epistle  of  Peter,  "  that  this  epistle  had  not  been 
translated  into  Syriac  with  the  Scriptures  in  old  times,  and 
was  therefore  found  only  in  the  version  of  Thomas  of 
Harkel."  | 

Two  different  texts  of  a  Syriac  ti-anslation  of  the  four 
catholic  epistles  which  the  Peshito  wants  were  first  made 
known  by  Pococke — one  complete,  the  other  only  fragmentary. 
The  first  was  printed  from  a  Bodleian  MS.  (which  contained 
the  Acts  and  the  three  catholic  epistles  of  the  Peshito)  ;  the 

*  In  Galland.  biblioth.  Patrum,  vol.  xi.  p.  535. 

t  See  Assemani  Bibliotheca  Orientalis,  vol.  ii.  p.  156. 

I  See  praefat.  to  Pococke's  "  Epistolae  quatuor,  Petri  secunda, 
Johannis  secunda  et  tertia,  et  Judae,  fratris  Jacobi  una,  ex  celeberr.  Bib- 
liothecae  Bodleianae  Oxon.  exemplar!  nunc  primum  depromptae,  &c.  &c. 
opera  et  studio  Eduardi  Pocockii,  &c.  Lugd.  Bat.  1630,  4to." 


196  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

second  was  gathered  out  of  the  commentary  of  Dionysius  Bar 
Salibi.  The  Philoxenian  version  too  contains  these  four 
catholic  epistles.  But  these  three  Syrian  texts  resolve  them- 
selves into  two ;  for  that  explained  by  Dionysius  in  his  com- 
mentary agrees  with  White's  Philoxenian,  and  must  be  con- 
sidered identical  with  it.  Hence  the  four  epistles  absent  from 
the  Peshito  are  extant  in  no  more  than  two  Syrian  texts,  those 
of  Pococke  and  White. 

The  two  texts  in  question  bear  decided  marks  of  separation 
from  the  manner  of  the  Peshito.  They  are  inferior  in  purity, 
clearness,  and  elegance  of  diction.  And  when  compared  with 
one  another  they  appear  to  be  formed  on  the  same  basis,  but 
evincing  a  striving  after  literality  in  different  ways. 

In  regard  to  the  origin  of  Pococke's  text,  we  have  no  his- 
torical accounts.  Hence  criticism  can  only  proceed  to  draw  a 
conclusion  respecting  it  by  comparing  it  with  the  Philoxenian. 
There  is  no  essential  difference  between  them.  The  general 
character  of  both  is  the  same.  Their  uniform  tenor  is  alike. 
And  in  words  they  agree  so  often  that  the  verbal  diversity  is 
the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  They  deviate  from  each 
other  only  in  that  which  the  reviser  of  a  particular  version 
would  look  upon  as  an  improvement.  The  text  of  White 
adheres  to  the  Greek  words  more  slavishly  than  that  of 
Pococke,  which  was  doubtless  reckoned  a  great  excellence  in 
the  fifth  century.  Hence  the  suggestion  naturally  arises  that 
the  former  may  possibly  have  been  but  the  revised  edition  of 
an  earlier  Syrian  translation,  in  which  the  chief  object  was  to 
remove  every  thing  supposed  not  to  represent  the  original 
accui-ately.  Accordingly,  we  suppose  that  the  text  of  White 
was  the  Philoxenian  revised  by  Thomas  of  Harkel,  and  made 
more  literal ;  while  that  of  Pococke  was  the  same  Philoxenian 
before  its  alteration  by  Thomas. 

To  shew  that  both  texts  represent  one  and  the  same  ver- 
sion, we  may  refer  to  the  version  of  laortixoc  ■rlffng  in  2  Peter  i.  1. 


SYRIAC   VERSION   OF   SOME   EPISTLES.  197 

In  Pococke's  text  the  sense  is  somewhat  obscurely  expressed; 
in  White's  it  is  clearer  and  more  conformed  to  the  Greek. 
Verse  3,  both  render  d^sr-/}  by  the  same  Syriac  noun,  but 
Thomas  added  another  for  the  purpose  of  exhausting  its 
meaning.  Verse  6,  both  translate  syx^drsia  by  the  one  word. 
In  verse  10  both  have  the  reading  "  your  good  works,"  but 
each  expresses  the  phrase  characteristically.  Compare  also 
verses  12, 15. 

Yet  Thomas  of  Harkel  could  not  follow  the  earlier  work 
without  alterations.  Existing  versions  did  not  satisfy  the 
taste  of  his  time,  because  they  appeared  to  indulge  in  too 
much  freedom.  Hence  he  altered  the  Philoxenian — already 
literal  enough — where  he  thought  it  departed  too  far  from  the 
Greek  text  either  in  the  choice  or  position  of  words.  Tliis 
might  be  abundantly  testified  by  examples.  We  must  con- 
tent ourselves  with  a  bare  reference  to  the  following : — 2  Peter 
i.  2,  3,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14,  15,  17,  18,  19.* 

The  result  of  this  comparison  makes  it  highly  probable, 
that  of  the  four  catholic  epistles  which  the  Peshito  wants,  we 
possess  the  Philoxenian  version  in  two  exemplars,  one  exhibit- 
ing its  original  condition  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  Poly- 
carp,  and  one  after  it  had  been  revised  by  Thomas  of  Harkel. 

It  should  be  recollected  here,  that  Polycarp,  in  the  case  of 
these  four  catholic  epistles,  had  no  Peshito  before  him,  but 
was  left  to  his  own  abilities  and  obliged  to  work  at  the  trans- 
lation independently.  But  Thomas  of  Harkel  had  the  assist- 
ance of  Greek  MSS. 

In  Eichhorn's  Introduction,  the  text  of  2  Peter  i.  5-10  is 
printed  in  three  parallel  columns — first,  the  Greek ;  secondly, 
the  Syriac  of  Pococke ;  thirdly,  that  of  White,  with  critical 
notes,  gi^'ing  a  very  convenient  specimen  for  the  purpose  of 
mutual  comparison. 

Nothing  could  be  more  absurd,  or  betray  greater  ignorance 
*  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  vol.  iv.  p.  450,  et  seq. 


198  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

of  antiquity,  as  well  as  of  the  reasonings  and  opinions  of  such 
critics  as  Eichhorn  and  De  Wette,  than  the  conjecture  that 
the  Nestorians  made  this  version  of  the  four  catholic  epistles 
wanting  in  the  Peshito,  that  they  might  not  be  behind  their 
rival  party  the  Monophysites,  who  had  the  Philoxenian. 
The  version  is  certainly  not  recent,  being  the  Philoxenian  in 
its  first  condition ;  and  although  it  is  not  so  very  literal  as  the 
revised  text  by  Thomas  of  Harkel,  it  is  equally  valuable,  if 
not  more  so,  for  critical  purposes. 

Since  Pococke  first  printed  it  in  the  Hebrew  character,  it 
has  been  repeatedly  reprinted  in  the  proper  Syriac  character, 
as  in  the  Paris  and  London  Polyglotts,  the  editions  of  Gut- 
bier,  Schaaf,  the  London  Bible  Society,  &c.  &c. 

Of  the  text  of  the  Apocalypse,  first  printed  by  De  Dieu, 
we  have  already  spoken,  as  belonging  to  the  Philoxenian  ver- 
sion revised  by  Thomas  of  Harkel.  All  the  probabilities  at 
least  are  in  favour  of  this  view.  It  has  been  also  reprinted  in 
the  same  editions  of  the  Peshito  as  contain  the  four  catholic 
epistles  to  which  we  have  just  alluded.* 

JERUSALEM  SYRIAC  VERSION. 

This  version  was  first  described  by  Asseman  in  his  cata- 
logue of  the  Vatican  library,  but  slightly.  It  was  fully 
described  by  Professor  Adler  about  the  middle  of  the  last 
century,  from  the  only  MS.  of  it  yet  known,  belonging  to  the 
Vatican,  No.  19,  consisting  of  196  thick  parchment  leaves,  in 
quarto.  It  is  an  Evangelistarium,  containing  nothing  more 
than  lessons  from  the  gospels  adapted  to  the  Sundays  and 
festivals  throughout  the  year  in  the  Syrian  churches.  The 
subscription  states  that  the  MS.  was  written  in  a  monastery  at 
Antioch  1030.  The  character  in  which  it  is  written  approaches 
the  Hebrew,  and  has  this  peculiarity,  that  Dolath  and  Risk 
*  See  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  pp.  12,  1.3. 


JERUSALEM   SYRIAC    VERSION.  199 

were  not  at  first  distinguished  by  a  critical  point ;  the  points 
they  have  now  having  been  put  by  a  later  hand.  Two  figures 
are  also  used  for  P.  and  F.,  though  they  are  represented  by 
one  in  the  Syrian  alphabet. 

The  dialect  resembles  the  Chaldee  as  spoken  at  Jei'usalem. 
Hence  words  frequently  occur  which  are  usual  in  the  Jeru- 
salem Talmud.  The  grammar  of  the  translator  also  ap- 
proaches the  Chaldee.  Thus  we  find  the  suffixes  of  the  third 
person  in  plural  nouns  the  same  as  in  Chaldee,  — »o  instead  of 
the  Syriac  ^cno  •  the  emphatic  state  terminating  in  t-»  aya^ 
whereas  in  Syriac  it  is  I,  e,  &c.  &c.  * 

From  internal  evidence  it  is  manifest  that  the  version  was 
made  from  the  Greek,  because  there  is  sometimes  an  endeavour 
to  express  Greek  etymologies.  Greek  words  are  also  retained. 
But  there  is  not  that  slavish  literality  observable  in  the  Phi- 
loxenian.  The  translation  is  freer,  occupying  an  intermediate 
character  between  the  Peshito  and  Philoxenian. 

The  Greek  text  which  it  represents  bears  the  impress  of  a 
high  antiquity.  Hence  it  approaches  to  that  of  the  Peshito 
and  western  class,  to  the  MSS.  D.  and  B.  Of  165  readings 
which  it  has,  79  are  found  in  the  Cambridge  MS.,  of  which  11 
are  peculiar  to  it ;  85  in  the  Vatican,  of  which  3  are  peculiar 
to  it.  On  the  whole  its  readings  agree  most  with  the  class  of 
MSS.  B.  C.  D.  L.  1-13,  33,  69,  &c.,  and  with  the  citations  of 
Origen  and  Chrysostom.  But  it  cannot  be  said  to  belong  to 
either  class  of  critical  authorities,  nor  is  its  text  made  up  of  a 
mixture  of  both.f 

Tlie  relation  which  the  version  bears  to  some  of  the  oldest 
and  best  documents  sufficiently  attests  the  antiquity  and  value 
of  the  text  that  lies  at  the  basis  of  it.  It  is  true  that  Adler 
found  in  it  upwards  of  seventy  singular  readings  where  no 
Greek  MS.  coincides  ;  but  this  demands  no  special  attention, 

*  See  Adler,  pp.  137-140. 
t  See  Adler,  de  verss.  Syr.  pp.  198-201. 


200  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

because  they  might  be  mistakes  of  the  transcriber,  or  the 
results  of  translating  too  freely.  * 

In   Luke   xxiii.    44,    xa/  cxoVoj hdr^g  is   omitted. 

Here  the  version  stands  alone,  and  is  probably  right.  It  seems 
in  like  manner  to  exhibit  the  true  reading,  along  with  a  few 
other  witnesses,  in  Matt.  i.  11,  ii.  18,  v.  47,  vi.  1,  viii.  13,  31,  xix. 
29,  xxi.  29 ;  Luke  vii.  28.  Some  corrections  seem  to  be  in  it, 
such  as  Matt.  vi.  6,  where  a  second  hand  added  improperly  h  rw 
pavigu).  In  xxi.  7,  we  have  the  correction  sTrsdyixav  ItI  rh  tSjXov, 
which  is  also  in  the  Peshito  and  Persian.  So  too  h  vviviMan 
ay/w.  Matt.  xxii.  43  |  a'xodvfiffjiovaa  for  xai  aurri  WTTsdvrjd/isv,  Luke 
viii.  42.  In  Luke  xvi.  21,  it  has  in  the  margin  the  same  addi- 
tion which  is  in  the  Vulgate  ;  and  in  Luke  xvi.  22,  and  John 
vi.  58,  something  is  added  in  the  margin.  Hence  we  sup- 
pose that  it  underwent  subsequent  revision,  f 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  story  of  the  adulteress, 
though  wanting  in  the  old  Syriac  and  Philoxenian,  occurs  in 
this  version  almost  in  the  same  form  in  which  it  appears  in  D. 
or  the  Cambridge  MS. 

Hug  has  endeavoured  to  determine  with  greater  definite- 
ness  than  others,  the  part  of  Syria  in  which  the  version  ori- 
ginated. He  thinks  that  it  was  in  a  Roman  province,  because 
soldiers  are  simply  called  ]-k^o5  Bomansj  Matt.  xvii.  27,  and 
in  the  same  verse  (rT£?|a  is  translated  Ij^mD  castra  (quaestores  ?) . 
Idioms  also  occur  in  it  which  are  found  only  in  the  Philoxenian, 
and  therefore  it  is  inferred  that  the  countries  where  they  origi- 
nated respectively  must  be  contiguous.  %  On  the  whole  Pales- 
tine has  the  best  claim  to  be  the  birthplace  of  it.  Hence  it 
has  been  called  Palestino-Syriac. 

In  regard  to  its  age,  Adler  assigns  it  to  the  fourth  century, 
Scholz  to  the  fifth.     A  few  Latin  words  however  which  occur 

*  See  Adler's  N.  T.  versiones  Syriacae,  &c.  p.  198. 

■]■  See  Rinck's  Lucubratio  Critica,  p.  241. 

\  Einleitimg,  vol.  i.  pp.  345,  346. 


JERUSALEM   SYRIAC   VERSION.  201 

here  and  there  create  some  difficulty  in  fixing  upon  so  early  a 
date.  These  Latin  words  were  probably  not  taken  by  the 
Jews  into  their  language  before  the  sixth  century,  and  some 
of  them  may  have  proceeded  from  a  later  hand.  Adler  him- 
self is  not  indisposed  to  bring  it  down  later,  and  to  put  it 
between  the  fourth  and  sixth  centuries.*  Probably  Scholz's 
opinion  is  nearly  correct. 

Adler,  to  whom  we  owe  all  our  knowledge  of  it,  has  given 
a  correct  description  of  the  MS.  and  its  contents  in  his  valu- 
able treatise  on  Syriac  versions.  He  has  also  printed,  by  way 
of  specimen,  Matt,  xxvii.  3-32.  Eichhorn  has  reprinted  and 
commented  on  the  same  portion,  f 

*  See  p.  202. 
t  Einleitung  iii  das  neue  Testament,  vol.  iv.  p.  493,  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


^THIOPIC  AND  EGYPTIAN  VERSIONS. 

^THIOPIC. 

The  ^thiopic  language  is  an  early  branch  of  the  Arabic ; 
and  our  existing  version  of  the  Scriptures  in  it  was  made 
throughout  from  the  Greek.  But  the  time  when  it  was  made 
cannot  be  discovered  either  by  express  historical  testimony,  or 
by  an  investigation  of  probable  grounds.  Chrysostom  boasts 
that  the  religious  books  of  the  Christians  had  been  translated 
into  the  dialects  of  nations  the  most  diverse  ;  and  specifies 
among  them  the  Syrians  and  Egyptians,  the  Jews,  Persians, 
and  Ethiopians ;  but  we  are  scarcely  justified  in  attaching 
much  significance  to  this  language.  The  eloquent  father 
speaks  in  the  hyperbolical,  exaggerated  strain  of  the  orator, 
rather  than  in  the  sober  tone  of  truth  and  reality.  The  Greek 
passage  need  not  be  quoted,  as  it  may  be  found  in  Marsh's 
Michaelis,  where  the  learned  translator  observes  that  Chrysos- 
tom has  weakened  his  own  evidence  by  the  addition  of  the 
clause  xai  iJj-j^ia  iTiPa  i&vri.  * 

Frumentius,  who   first   preached  Christianity   among  the 
Ethiopians,  and   is   mentioned    by  Athanasius  in    his    apo- 
logy to  the  Emperor  Constantius,  is  commonly  supposed  to  be 
*  See  0pp.  cd.  Montfaucon,  vol.  viii.  p.  10. 


^THIOPIC    VERSION.  203 

the  author  of  an  ^thiopic  version.  If  this  be  true,  the 
Scriptures  were  translated  by  him  towards  the  close  of  the 
foui'th  century.  This  however  is  mere  hypothesis.  The  first 
preacher  of  the  gospel  among  a  foreign  people  may  not  be 
capable  of  translating  the  records  of  religion  into  their  native 
tongue.  He  may  not  even  have  the  leisure  necessary  for 
that  purpose,  supposing  him  fit  for  the  task.  Centuries  may 
elapse  before  a  competent  person  be  found  for  the  work. 
Hence  the  connexion  between  Frumentius  and  the  translator 
of  the  Bible  into  ^thiopic  is  very  slender.  It  is  perhaps 
more  likely  that  he  was  not  the  translator,  than  the  contrary. 
The  Abyssinians,  as  we  are  informed  by  Ludolf,  *  mention 
with  particular  honour  among  their  first  preachers  of  Christi- 
anity one  Abba  Salama,  to  whom  a  native  poet  and  an 
-^thiopic  martyrology  ascribe  the  translation  of  the  books  of 
the  law  and  gospel  from  the  Arabic,  into  the  native  language. 
But  this  is  very  questionable ;  at  least  the  present  version 
was  not  the  one  alluded  to,  as  it  was  made  from  the  ori- 
ginal. 

The  present  translation,  or  the  one  said  to  have  been 
made  by  Frumentius,  was  composed  in  the  Geez  dialect, 
according  to  Bruce.  But  that  is  the  dialect  of  the  learned, 
which  would  scarcely  have  been  chosen  for  the  benefit  of  the 
common  people.  The  version  is  in  the  ancient  dialect  of 
Axum,  which  afterwards  gave  way  to  the  Amharic,  when 
another  dynasty  mounted  the  throne. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  ^thiopic  version  was  taken  from 
the  original  Greek.  The  mistakes  it  presents  could  only  have 
arisen  from  the  Greek,  as  h  ogloig  Zaj3ouXujVj  in  monte  Zahulon, 
Matt.  iv.  13 ;  ir'ihaic,  (puXasanixivog,  a  parvulis  custoditus,  Luke 
viii.  29 ;  'r^o7(.i-)(ii^iaiMivov,  quern  pfaeunxitj  Acts  iii.  20,  as  if  it 
had  been  '!r^oxiy^^i(rfji,ivov  /  xarsvvyrjSav  rfj  -/.a^SicCf  apertt  sunt  quoad 

*  Historia  ^thiopica,  Lib.  iii.  c.  2.  and  Commentarius  in  histor. 
iEthiop.  Ad.  Lib.  iii.  c.  4.  p.  295. 


204  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

animumy  Acts  ii.  37,  where  the  verb  was  mistaken  for  xarnv- 
oi^drigav ;  oug  (jjh  'ikro,  aurem  posuit  ecclesiae,  1  Cor.  xii.  28, 
where  there  was  a  mistake  for  oDs  i^h,  &c,  * 

In  consequence  of  the  agreement  of  the  -^thiopic  with 
the  Coptic,  Bengel  conjectured  that  it  was  derived  from  the 
latter.  This  however  is  baseless.  Proofs  of  it  are  superflu- 
ous since  C.  B.  Michaelis  entered  fully  into  the  subject,  and 
shewed  by  numerous  examples  that  there  is  frequent  disagree- 
ment between  the  two  versions,  f 

The  critical  peculiarities  of  the  text  are  not  easily  dis- 
covered or  described.  And  what  renders  this  fact  more 
apparent,  or  probably  contributes  to  it  in  no  small  degree,  is 
the  faulty  way  in  which  the  text  has  been  printed.  In 
general,  it  frequently  agrees  with  the  Cambridge  MS.  (D.) 
and  the  old  Latin,  shewing  glosses  and  interpolations  similar 
to  those  found  in  these  ancient  documents.  Hence  those  critics 
who  hold  various  revisions  of  the  text  in  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  would  say  that  the  version  is  derived  directly 
or  indirectly  from  the  old  unrevised  text.  As  might  be 
expected,  it  agrees  most  with  the  western  class  in  its  two 
families,  the  African  and  Latin.  It  is  vain  to  attempt  a 
more  minute  investigation,  as  Hug  has  done ;  for  nothing  is 
gained  by  conjectures.  Thus  he  says,  that  the  text  of  the 
four  gospels  does  not  adhere  constantly  to  any  class  of  MSS.:|: 
Neither  does  the  text  of  any  existing  version.  And  when 
the  same  writer  aflSrms  that  several  versions  are  combined  in 
this  one  copy,  or  else  several  MSS.  of  different  recensions 
were  used  in  the  composition  of  it,  the  assertion  is  very 
improbable.  The  translator  or  translators  used  such  MSS.  as 
they  could  procure  most  easily.  They  employed  Alexandrine 
copies.  Their  text  was  that  which  then  prevailed  at  Alex- 
andria.    This  indeed  is  admitted  by  Hug  except  in  relation 

*  See  Hug's  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  377  ;  and  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  vol.  v.  p.  68. 
t  De  variis  N.  T.  lectionibus,  §  26.  %  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  376. 


^THIOPIC   VERSION.  205 

to  the  gospels,  where  he  maintains  that  the  text  flowed  from 
various  constituent  sources,  Asiatic  and   Alexandrine, 

The  book  of  Acts  is  most  incorrectly  edited.  Those  who 
first  published  the  version  at  Rome  had  a  very  imperfect  copy 
of  it,  and  were  obliged  in  not  a  few  instances  to  translate 
from  the  Vulgate  into  ^thiopic  to  supply  deficiencies.  This 
is  admitted  by  themselves.  In  the  preface  they  say  : —  "  Ista 
acta  apostolorum  maximam  partem  Romae  translata  sunt  e 
lingua  Latina  et  Graeca  in  ^thiopicam  propter  defectum  pro- 
tographi."*  Is  the  suspicion  quite  unfounded,  that  the  Vul- 
gate was  consulted  in  other  cases  besides  the  Acts  ? 

A  few  examples  will  shew  the  agreement  of  the  text  in 
this  version  with  D.,  the  old  Latin,  the  Vulgate,  and  also  with 
Clement  and  Origen. 

Matt.  vii.  1,  avTiixir^rid'/^Girat.  The  ^thiopic,  Origen,  B.  L. 
and  important  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  have  /xsr^'^drjgsrai.  Matt.  ix. 
24,  Xiyn  auToTc  dmy^u^sTrs.  The  vEthiopic,  old  Latin,  Vulgate, 
D.  B.,  have  iXsysv  avroTg  &c.  Acts  i.  23,  fSa^ffajSav.  -^thiopic, 
D.,  and  some  other  authorities,  I3a^m(3av ;  John  i.  18,  /Mvoysvyji; 
utog ;  the  ^thiopic,  Clement  twice,  Origen  twice,  the  Syriac, 
B.  L.,  and  a  considerable  number  of  weighty  authorities,  have 
kdg ;  John  i.  42,  T^urog ;  the  ^thiopic,  old  Latin,  Vulgate, 
both  Syriac,  A.  M.  X.  &c.,  have  t^utov  ;  Eph.  vi.  12,  tou  ffTcoTovg 
rov  aluvog  roirouy  rov  aiuivog  is  omitted  by  the  ^tlliopic,  old 
Latin,  Vulgate,  Clement,  Origen,  and  many  ancient  authorities.f 

The  version  was  first  published  at  Rome  by  three  Ethi- 
opians in  two  volumes  4to,  1548-49.  This  was  reprinted 
in  the  London  Polyglott,  but  without  improvement,  1657 
folio,  with  a  Latin  version  by  Dudley  Loftus,  under  the  care 
of  Edmund  Castell.  The  edition  of  1698  is  the  same  with  a 
new  date  and  title  page.     In  1753-55  Bode,  who  gave  more 

*  See  Ludolf  3  Commentarius,  &c.  p.  297. 

t  See  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  vol.  v.  pp.  72,  73  ;  and  De  Wette,  Einleit. 
fifth  edition,  pp.  20,  21. 


206  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

attention  to  tlie  version  than  any  preceding  scholar,  published  a 
Latin  translation  in  two  volumes  4to  at  Brunswick.  He  also 
published  his  Pseudo-critica  Millio-Bengeliana,  Halle  1767, 
1769,  2  vols.  8vo,  in  which  he  corrected  many  errors  of  Bengel 
and  Mill. 

In  his  history  of  ^Ethiopia,  Ludolf  gave  a  list  of  the 
^thiopic  MSS.  found  in  the  libraries  of  Europe  in  his  day. 

Some  years  ago,  an  entire  copy  of  the  ^thiopic  Scriptures 
was  purchased  by  the  Church  Missionary  Society.  This  MS. 
was  carefully  transcribed  and  the  four  gospels  published  in 
1826  4to,  by  T.  Pell  Piatt,  Esq.  with  the  title ;  "  Evangelia 
Sancta  ^thiopica.  Ad  codicum  manuscriptorum  fidem  edidit 
Thomas  Pell  Piatt,  A.  M.  Londini  1826,  4to."  The  whole 
New  Testament  was  completed  by  the  same  scholar  and  pub- 
lished in  1830.  Unfortunately  this  text  has  not  yet  been 
collated  and  employed  in  any  critical  edition.  Mr.  Piatt  also 
published  a  "  Catalogue  of  the  ^thiopic  Biblical  MSS.  in  the 
Royal  Library  of  Paris,  and  in  the  library  of  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society,"  4to,  London  1823. 

EGYPTIAN  VERSIONS. 

After  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great,  the  Greeks  multi- 
plied in  Egypt  and  obtained  important  places  of  trust  near  the 
throne  of  the  Ptolemies.  The  Greek  language  began  to  diffuse 
itself  from  the  court  among  the  people,  and  the  Egyptian  was 
either  excluded,  or  obliged  to  adapt  itself  to  the  Greek  both  in 
forms  of  construction  and  the  adoption  of  new  words.  In  this 
manner  arose  the  Coptic,  a  mixture  of  the  old  native  Egyptian 
and  the  Greek,  so  called  from  Coptos  the  principal  city  in 
upper  Egypt.  When  the  race  of  the  Ptolemies  became  extinct, 
this  language  acquired  greater  esteem  and  authority ;  the 
Greek  which  had  been  forcibly  introduced  by  foreigners, 
naturally  declining  with  the  waning  influence  of  those  whose 


^THIOPIC   VERSION.  207 

vernacular  dialect  it  was.  It  would  appear  that  the  Coptic 
established  itself  in  upper  Egypt  sooner  and  more  extensively 
than  in  the  lower  division  of  the  country,  not  only  because  the 
Greeks  were  much  more  numerous  at  Alexandria,  but  because 
of  the  commerce  carried  on  by  its  inhabitants  with  nations 
speaking  the  Greek  language. 

As  soon  as  the  Egyptian  or  Coptic  had  displaced  the  Greek, 
the  necessity  of  a  version  of  the  Bible  would  be  felt  by  the 
Christians,  in  the  cun'ent  language  of  the  country.  The  disuse 
of  Greek  led  to  a  demand  for  the  Coptic  Scriptiu'es. 

At  what  time  Egyptian  versions  first  appeared  cannot  be 
ascertained  with  exactness.  It  is  tolerably  clear  that  they 
existed  in  the  fourth  century.  One  bishop  at  least  who  did 
not  know  Greek,  was  at  the  council  of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451). 
The  services  and  liturgy  of  the  churches  must  have  been 
in  Coptic  if  not  solely,  yet  not  in  Greek  without  the 
native  tongue  also.  In  proof  of  this  a  passage  from  an  old 
Coptic  glossary  has  been  produced  by  Renaudot,*  and  a  very 
ancient  fragment  of  John,  belonging  to  the  fourth  century 
published  by  Georgi.  Besides,  the  monkish  rules,  as  those  of 
Pachomius,  enjoined  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  and  Psalter, 
which  must  have  been  in  the  language  then  spoken.  Thus, 
says  Hug,  in  the  fourth  century  Egyptian  versions  of  the  New 
Testament  were  current  in  Nitria,  in  the  Thebaid,  in  the 
Arsinoitic  nome,  in  upper,  lower,  and  middle  Egypt.f 

But  this  is  not  their  earliest  existence.  Probably  the  first 
were  made  in  the  latter  half  of  the  third  century,  if  there  be 
any  weight  in  the  particulars  mentioned  by  Hug,  viz.  that  in 
the  Diocletian  persecution  the  praetor  visited  upper  Egypt  in 
search  of  Christians,  and  when  one  voluntarily  gave  himself  up 
he  was  tried  through  an  interpreter  and  sentenced  to  death ; 
that  Hieracas  of  Leonto  about  the  close  of  the  third  century 

*  Liturg.  Orient,  collectio,  vol.  i.  p.  205. 
^  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  362. 


208  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

composed  a  treatise  on  the  works  of  the  six  days  presupposing 
a  version  of  the  Mosaic  wi-itings. 

There  were  two  principal  dialects  of  the  Egyptian  or  Coptic 
language,  viz.  the  Thebaic  or  Sahidic,  and  Memphitic.  The 
former  was  the  dialect  of  upper  Egypt ;  the  latter  that  of  the 
lower  country. 

1.   SaMdic  or  Thebaic. 

Only  fragments  and  readings  of  this  version  have  been 
published.  Hence  it  has  afforded  comparatively  little  aid  to 
the  restoration  of  the  primitive  text,  though  its  value  and 
antiquity  are  such  as  entitle  it  to  great  weight,  wherever  its 
testimony  is  fairly  known.  But  till  it  be  fully  and  correctly 
published  by  a  competent  scholar,  criticism  must  be  contented 
with  using  the  parts  that  are  accessible.  Woide  was  the  first 
who  gave  to  the  public  a  few  specimens  of  the  Sahidic  version 
of  the  gospels,  consisting  in  mere  readings.  They  were  printed 
in  J.  A.  Cramer's  Beitrage  or  contributions  to  the  theological 
and  other  sciences,  in  1779.  Shortly  after,  Mingarelli  pub- 
lished the  text  of  some  fragments  of  the  gospels  found  in  the 
library  of  Chevalier  Nani,  1785.  These  are  Matt,  xviii. 
21 — xxi.  15.  John  ix.  17 — xv.  1.  Georgi  also  published 
some  fragments  of  John's  gospel  found  in  the  library  of 
Cardinal  Borgia,  having  by  the  side  of  the  Sahidic  the  Greek 
text  in  uncial  letters,  1789.  They  contain  John  vi.  21-59, 
vi.  68 — viii.  23.  Woide  still  continued  to  collect  readings  of 
the  epistles  which  he  had  commenced  with  the  contribution 
already  mentioned.  He  sent  to  Michaelis,  who  published  them 
in  his  Oriental  Library .,  readings  out  of  the  Acts  from  a  MS. 
in  the  Bodleian  containing  the  Acts  in  this  version,  and  readings 
in  the  epistles  of  John  and  Jude.  Miinter  also  published  some 
fragments  of  the  Pauline  epistles  from  MSS.  in  the  possession 
of  Borgia,  1789.  Woide  did  not  cease  gathering  fragments  of 
the  version  from  all  quarters,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  a 
complete  copy  of  the  New  Testament  in  this  language,  which 


MEMPHITFC    VERSION.  209 

It  was  his  intention  to  publisli.  Before  however  the  work  was 
ready  for  the  press,  he  died.  But  Ford  published  all  that  had 
been  collected  with  various  additions  and  the  correction  of 
some  mistakes,  as  an  Appendix  to  the  fac-simile  of  the  God. 
Alexandrinus  1799,  folio,  Oxford.  In  this  splendidly  printed 
work,  the  New  Testament  has  still  many  chasms,  which  may 
be  hereafter  supplied  out  of  MSS.  in  the  Borgian  Museum,  of 
which  Zoega  has  given  an  account  and  published  some 
fragments. 

We  might  have  expected  beforehand  that  the  readings  of 
this  version  would  agree  with  the  western  class  in  both  its 
families,  the  African  and  Latin.  This  is  actually  the  case. 
The  text  most  frequently  coincides  with  the  Cambridge  MS. 
D.  It  also  harmonises  with  the  old  Latin,  the  Peshito,  and 
the  oldest  MSS.  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G. 

The  agreement  with  D.  in  the  Acts  is  very  marked.  Thus 
i.  2,  the  words  xn^uesitv  rb  iliayyikm  are  inserted  before  n-og 
s^iXs^aro.  D.  has  /.ai  sxsXsuse  y.yi^vsssiv  to  ivayysXiov.  In  i.  5,  'iojg  r^g 
rnvTixoerng  is  appended  in  the  version  and  in  D.  In  v,  4,  for 
TO  'Kgayiha  tovto  the  Sahidic  and  D.  have  Toirjgai  to  tovyj^ov.  v,  35, 
they  have  Tovg  li^y^ovTag  xai  Toxjg  (Svvih^ioug,  Vlii.  1,  to  h^yiihg 
li'syag  these  documents  add,  %a\  ^Xi-^ig ;  and  after  tZjv  avoaToXm 
they  have  o'l  'iiMnvav  sv  ' lioovaaXriiM.  Acts  x.  23,  for  iicfKoKiSd/jJivog 
oZv  avToug  s^sviss  the  Sahidic,  Peshito,  and  D.  have  tots  shayayuv 
0  -TTsT^og  l^htGiv  a-jTovg.  In  XV.  23,  the  Syriac,  Sahidic,  and  MSS. 
of  the  Latin  have  y^d-^avTsg  i'TtidToXriv  for  y^d-^avTig/^ 

In  the  Pauline  epistles  it  frequently  agrees  with  D.  or  the 
Clermont  MS.  in  addition  to  the  old  Latin  and  the  oldest 
MSS.  ;  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  give  examples. 

2.  Memj)lutic. 

This  version  has  been  published  entire,  so  that  it  is  better 
known  than  the  Sahidic.     The  edition  of  Wilkins  appeared  at 
Oxford  in  1716  in  quarto,  with  the  title  Novum   Testamentum 
*  See  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  vol.  v.  pp.  18,  19. 

VOL.    II.  P 


210  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

^gyptium^  vulgo  G(ypticum.^  ex  MS8.  Bodlejanis  descripsit,  cum 
Vaticanis  et  Parisiensihus  contulit^  et  in  Latinum  sermofiem  con- 
vertit,  David  Wilkins.  No  other  edition  was  attempted  till 
Schwartze  began  a  better  and  more  correct  one,  of  which  the 
gospels  were  published  at  Leipzig  in  1846,  1847.  In  the  pre- 
paration of  this  edition  the  author  made  use  of  MSS.  in  the 
royal  library  of  Berlin.  It  was  interrupted  by  his  death,  but 
his  papers  passed  into  the  hands  of  Petermann  of  Berlin  and 
Boetticher  of  Halle,  the  latter  of  whom  is  continuing  the  work. 
Already  the  Acts  have  appeared. 

The  agreement  of  the  Mernphitic  and  Sahidic  is  very  re- 
markable in  many  cases.  Thus  they  verbally  coincide  in 
Matt,  xviii.  35,  where  they  omit  ra  va^a'TrTu^ara  ahruv ;  in 
Matt.  XXV.  16,  where  they  omit  rdXavra  after  aXXa  tbvts  ;  in 
Luke  xxiii.  23,  where  they  leave  out  xa!  rm  a^^n^scuv;  in  Matt, 
xviii.  29,  where  they  omit  roue  vdhag  ahroii ;  in  Matt.  xix.  3, 
where  they  have  xa/  Xiyovng  without  ahrw  ;  in  Matt.  xix.  9, 
where  they  have  'Traosxrog  Xoyou  To^i/s/ag  /  in  Matt.  xix.  4,  where 
they  have  sTrrsv  without  auroTg ;  in  Matt.  xix.  25,  where  they 
have  0/  fiadyjTat  alone,  without  aurov ;  in  Matt.  xx.  6,  where 
they  read  iarurag  without  d^youg ;  in  Matt.  XX.  7,  where  they 
omit  xai  0  sdv  fi  dlxaion,  Xri'^idk ;  in  Matt.  XX.  22,  23,  where 
both  omit  xai  rh  (Bd'rrriGiJja  o  syoo  jBa-rri^o[jjai,  (Ba--ri6&ri\/ai ;  in  John 
ix.  26,  where  they  leave  out  'xakiv ;  in  John  ix.  31,  where  they 
read  o'iha[/.iv  only;  in  John  x.  4,  where  they  have  rd  'iha  rtdvra; 
in  John  x.  13,  where  they  omit  6  h\  [/.Ks&curhg  psuys/.*  Such 
agreement  might  almost  lead  to  the  supposition  that  the  one 
translator  had  the  work  of  the  other  before  him.  But  that 
can  hardly  have  been,  especially  as  the  two  are  quite  indepen- 
dent of  one  another  in  many  cases.  They  differ  as  often  as 
they  agree. 

Attempts  have  been  made  by  Munter,  Hug  and  others,  to 
distinguish  the  form  of  the  text  which  the  version  exhibits  in 
*  See  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  vol.  v.  pp.  7,  8. 


MEMPHTTIC    VEKSION.  211 

different  parts.  But  they  have  not  been  successful  or  satis- 
factory. On  the  whole  its  readings  agree  with  the  oldest  text, 
that  of  the  MSS.  A.  B.  C.  D.  L.  ;  also  the  Peshito  and  Old 
Latin.  They  belong  therefore  to  the  western  class,  including 
both  the  African  and  Latin  families.  Miinter  thinks  that  the 
text  of  our  version  in  the  gospels  inclines  more  to  the  Western, 
in  the  Acts  and  epistles  to  the  Alexandrine  recensions.*  But 
when  it  agrees  with  A.  B.  C,  the  Syriac  Peshito  and  Vulgate 
usually  coincide  with  it.  In  the  epistle  to  the  Eomans,  though 
it  often  agrees  with  A.  C.  yet  it  sometimes  follows  the  text  in 
D.  E.  F.  Ct.  Thus  with  the  former  it  omits  Romans  xvi.  24  ; 
but  with  the  latter  authorities  it  coincides  in  vii.  23,  x.  5,  8, 
xiv.  16,  XV.  10.  In  the  gospels  it  often  agrees  with  A.  B.  C. 
De  Wette,  who  appears  to  have  given  particular  attention  to 
the  text,  observes  that  it  follows  none  of  the  characteristic  read- 
ings of  D.  in  the  gospels  ;  and  that  in  Mark  i.  ii.  it  coincides 
eleven  times  with  Alexandrine  copies,  t  A  few  examples  will 
suffice  to  shew  the  nature  of  its  readings. 

Mark  ii.  9,  tysigs  a^ov  v/ithout  the  xai,  and  similarly  in 
verse  11.  Here  it  is  accompanied  by  A.  C.  D.  L.  in  the 
former  case,  and  A.  B.  C.  D.  L.,  &c.  in  the  latter. 

Mark  ii.  22,  6  ohog  6  v'sog^  without  vsog^  in  the  Memphitic  and 
B.  D.  L. ;  Mark  v.  36,  eu^sw?  is  omitted  in  it  and  B.  D.  L. 
So  too  in  Luke  viii.  9,  Xsyovrsg  is  left  out  in  it  and  B.  D.  L., 
&c.  Mark  v.  13,  sudsojg  is  not  acknowledged  by  it  or  B.  C.  L. 
Mark  v.  14,  instead  of  roug  x'^'i^^s  it  has  merely  avroug,  with 
B.  C.  D.  L.  In  Mark  iii.  31,  the  order  is  ^  /x-jjrjjg  xai  o'l  ahX<poi 
a.-jrov  in  the  Coptic,  B.  C.  D.  L.,  &c.  In  Mark  v.  9,  for 
avvA.pQn  Xs/wi',  it  has  Xsyn  air  a  only,  with  A.  B.  C  K.**  L. 
M.  In  Mark  v,  11,  for  T^iSig  ra  o'g^j  it  reads  t^os  rffl  o|e/,  with  A. 
B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  H.  K.  L.  M.  S.     Mark  v,  12,  the  received 

text  has   zai  TaPizaXiaav  aurov  ^avTzg  /   'zavrsg  \S  wanting  in   tliB 

*  In  Eichhora's  Allgem.  Bibliothek.  vol.  iv.  p.  403. 
t  Einleitung,  p.  23. 


212  BIBLICAL    CKITICISM. 

Coptic,  B.  0.  D.  K.  L,  M.  In  Acts  ii.  7,  -rgk  aXXriXovg  is 
wanting  in  A.  B.  C*  and  the  Coptic.     In  Acts  ii.  30,  this 

version  with  A.  C.  D.  wants  to  -/.ara  sd^xa  dvaarrjcuv  rov  Xpffrov. 
In  Phil.  i.  14,  for  rov  Xoyov  XaXsTv  the  Coptic  and  A.  B.  have 
Toti  Xoyov  TOO  &SOV  XaXsTv.  Philip,  ii.  3,  for  ri  -/.ivodo^iav  of  the  re- 
ceived text,  this  version  together  with  A.  C.  has  /MT^ds  zara  xsvo- 
do^iav.  Philip,  iii.  16,  the  Coptic,  A.  and  B.  have  rcJ  avruj 
<S7oi-)(uv  simply.* 

It  has  been  inquired  whether  the  Sahidic  or  Memphitic 
version  was  the  older.  Though  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain 
the  particular  period  at  which  either  first  appeared,  yet  it  is 
probable  that  neither  was  subsequent  to  the  first  half  of  the 
fourth  century.  We  can  only  arrive  at  a  conclusion  which 
will  be  likely  to  recommend  itself  to  general  acceptance  by 
considering  the  respective  necessities  and  circumstances  of  the 
upper  and  lower  divisions  of  the  country,  as  well  as  the  charac- 
teristics of  the  dialects  that  prevailed  in  them.  The  Greek 
language  was  introduced  first  into  Alexandria,  and  obtained 
greatest  currency  there.  Alexandria  was  its  chief  seat  and 
centre,  whence  it  spread  into  other  districts  of  the  country.  It 
maintained  its  influence  the  longest  there.  There  it  was  most 
difficult  to  be  displaced.  According  to  the  position  of  districts 
in  relation  to  this  capital  city,  would  be  the  slower  or  more 
speedy  introduction  of  the  Greek.  The  necessity  of  a  version 
would  be  soonest  felt  in  the  district  where  Hellenism  made 
least  way,  the  ancient  language  soon  recovering  its  position 
after  the  extinction  of  the  Greek  supremacy.  This  was  in 
upper  Egypt,  the  part  farthest  from  Alexandria,  where  the 
Greek  tongue  never  succeeded  in  supplanting  the  old  Egyptian. 
Hence  the  Sahidic  or  Thebaic  version  was  probably  the  more 
ancient.  With  this  agrees  the  character  of  the  Sahidic  itself. 
It  contains  a  greater  number  of  Greek  words  than  the  version 
of  lower  Egypt,  because  it  was  made  at  a  time  when  the 
*  See  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  vol.  v.  p.  9. 


BASHMURIC   VERSION.  213 

Egyptian  still  retained  many  of  the  foreign  materials  that  had 
been  forced  into  it.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  Memphitic 
was  not  made  till  the  old  language  had  been  purified  to  a  great 
extent  of  foreign  elements.  Hence  it  contains  fewer  Greek 
words.  Probably  a  century  is  not  too  much  to  assume  as  the 
interval  of  time  between  the  Sahidic  and  Memphitic.  The 
former  may  be  assigned  to  the  latter  part  of  the  second ;  the 
latter  to  the  second  half  of  the  third  century.* 

3.  Bashmuric. 

Fragments  of  a  version  apparently  in  another  dialect  of 
Egypt  have  been  discovered.  This  third  dialect  has  been 
called  Bashmuric.  It  is  difficult  however  to  tell  the  part  of 
the  country  it  belongs  to.  Bashmur  is  a  province  in  lower 
Egypt  in  the  Delta  to  the  east,  as  has  been  shewn  by  Zoega  f 
and  Quatremere,$  thus  demolishing  Georgi's  opinion  that 
Bashmur  was  about  the  Ammonian  oasis.  The  fragments 
hitherto  discovered  are  but  few,  and  were  published  at  dif- 
ferent times  in  separate  parts  by  Georgi  and  Mtinter,  Zoega 
and  Engelbreth.  They  consist  of  a  few  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  in  the  New  of  John  iv.  28-34,  iv.  36-40,  iv. 
43-47,  iv.  48-53,  &c. ;  1  Corinth,  vi.  9— ix.  16,  1  Corinth, 
xiv.  3— XV.  35  ;  Eph.  vi.  18— Phil.  ii.  2 ;  1  Thes.  i.  1— iii.  5 ; 
and  Heb.  v.  5 — x.  22.  Georgi  had  previously  published  John 
vi.  4-59,  vi.  68 — viii.  23,  which  Quatremere  holds  not  to  be 
Bashmuric.  The  fragments  in  question  were  published  inde- 
pendently of  one  another  by  Engelbreth,  in  1811  4to,  at 
Copenhagen  ;  and  by  Zoega  in  his  catalogue  of  the  Borgiano- 
Coptic  MSS. 

These  fragments  have  given  rise  to  much  difference  of 
opinion.  Some  claim  for  the  Bashmuric  the  rank  of  a  parti- 
cular dialect,  as  Georgi  and  Engelbreth ;  while  Miinter  and 

*  Hug"s  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  369. 
f  Catalogus  codd.  Copt.  MSS.  Musei  Borgiani,  pp.  140-144. 
+  Recherches  sur  lalangueet  la  litterature  de  I'Egypte,  v.  p.  147,  et  seq. 


214  BIBLICAL    CEITICISM. 

Champollion  the  younger  perceive  no  necessity  for  distinguish- 
ing it  in  that  manner.  Hug  supposes  it  to  be  the  idiom  of 
middle  Egypt,  and  is  inclined  to  identify  Bashraur  with 
Faiom.  Both  he  and  De  Wette  doubt  whether  a  third  dialect 
should  be  assumed.  The  most  probable  supposition  is,  that 
what  is  termed  Bashmuric  is  but  an  idiom  of  the  Thebaic  or 
Sahidic  dialect ;  and  that  the  fragments  are  no  part  of  a  sepa- 
rate version,  but  merely  the  Sahidic  transferred  into  the  idiom 
of  a  particular  district  nearer  upper  than  lower  Egypt,  yet 
between  the  two.  The  text  agrees  with  the  Sahidic  ;  and  is 
therefore  of  the  Alexandrine  or  Western  type,  * 

*  See  Hug's  Einleitving,  vol.  i.  p.  369,  et  seq. 


CHAPTEU   XIV. 


ARMENIAN    VERSION. 

Armenian  literature  began  with  Miesrob  the  inventor  of  a 
new  alphabet  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  Before 
him,  the  Armenians  used  Persian  and  Syrian  letters.  After 
inventing  a  new  alphabet  and  communicating  the  knowledge 
of  it  to  the  king  and  the  patriarch  of  the  country,  schools 
were  established  under  their  influence,  and  Miesrob  went  into 
Iberia.  On  his  return,  Isaac  the  patriarch  was  translating  the 
Bible  from  the  old  Syriac,  there  being  no  Greek  MSS.  in  the 
country.  But  this  work  was  laid  aside  after  Joseph  and 
Eznak,  or  as  they  are  called  by  Moses  Chorenensis,  John 
Ecelensis  and  Joseph  Palnensis,  returned  from  the  council  at 
Ephesus  (a.  d.  431),  bringing  with  them,  in  addition  to  the 
decrees  of  the  Synod,  a  carefully  written  copy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  the  Greek  language.  Still  Miesrob  and  Isaac  felt 
the  necessity  of  a  better  acquaintance  with  Greek  for  the  pur- 
pose of  executing  so  arduous  a  task,  and  therefore  the  two 
scholars  Joseph  and  Eznak  repaired  to  Alexandria  to  study  the 
language  in  the  school  of  that  city.  Hence  we  owe  the  Arme- 
nian version  of  the  Bible  to  Joseph  and  Eznak.  Their  contem- 
porary, the  historian  Moses  Chorenensis,  is  said  to  have  assisted 
in  the  work.*      As  to  the  tradition  about  John  Chrysostom 

*  See  Mosis  Chorenensis   Ilistoria  Armeniaca,  Lib.  iii.  cap.   6],  pp. 
312,  313.  ed.  Whiston. 


216  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

encouraging  tlie  Armenians  to   translate   their  sacred  books 
during  his  exile  at  Kukus  in  Armenia,  it  wants  support.* 

•  The  original  account  implies,  that  the  Old  Testament  was 
made  from  the  Septuagint,  and  the  New  from  the  original 
Greek. 

According  to  Gregory  Bar  Hebraeus  it  was  interpolated 
from  the  Peshito  or  old  Syriac — Isaac  and  Miesrob  comparing 
it  after  its  completion  from  the  Greek  with  that  version.!  It 
is  not  very  certain,  however,  whether  this  was  done ;  though 
the  statement  is  favoured  by  the  great  agreement  existing 
between  the  Armenian  and  Peshito.  If  we  knew  that  there 
was  a  historical  foundation  for  the  assertion  of  Bar  Hebraeus, 
it  should  be  unhesitatingly  received ;  but  probably  it  was 
nothing  more  than  affirmation.  Yet  Hug  unhesitatingly 
receives  it  and  finds  it  easy  to  separate  the  Peshito  readings. 
When  Alfordf  says  that  the  Armenian  was  originally  made 
from  the  Syriac  versions  he  is  certainly  in  error. 

The  cause  of  agreement  may  lie  in  the  MS.  or  MSS.  used. 
Those  at  the  basis  of  the  Peshito  and  Armenian  were  alike  in 
their  texts ;  and  therefore  the  derivative  translations  present 
many  coincidences. 

The  readings  of  the  Armenian  and  the  old  Latin  are  also 
alike  in  many  cases.  This  has  been  accounted  for  by  inter- 
polation from  the  Vulgate.  All  latinising  passages  have  been 
referred  to  the  thirteenth  century  when  the  churches  of 
Armenia  submitted  to  the  Pope,  under  the  reign  of  the  bigot 
Haitlio.  The  tradition  is  that  Haitho  took  steps  to  procure  a 
new  edition  of  the  Armenian  Bible,  and  that  out  of  attach- 
ment to  the  Romish  church  he  altered  much  according  to  the 
Latin  of  the  Vulgate  which  he  was  able  to  read  himself. 
From   the  fact  of  the  passage  respecting  the  three  witnesses 

*  Anonyma  vita  Chrysostomi,  c.  113. 

t  Walton's  Prolegomena,  p.  621,  ed.  Dathe. 

\  Greek  Testament,  vol.  i.  Prolegomena,  §  3. 


ARMENIAN    VERSION.  217 

being  cited  in  a  council  held  thirty-seven  years  after  his  death 
at  Sis  in  Armenia,  and  its  being  found  in  other  Armenian 
documents,  the  interpolation  of  1  John  v.  7  is  ascribed  to  his 
edition  of  the  version,  there  being  no  trace  of  it  previously ; 
and  on  this  basis  has  been  built  the  supposition  that  Haitho 
may  have  altered  other  places  also.  It  is  possible  that  Haitho 
inserted  1  John  v.  7  in  his  edition.  It  may  have  heen  taken 
from  the  Vulgate  either  by  him  or  at  his  suggestion.  But  the 
hypothesis  of  a  general  interpolation  from  the  Latin  at  the 
same  time  is  precarious.  One  leading  passage  is  insufficient 
to  establish  it.  The  readings  that  appear  to  latmise  may  not 
have  originated  in  this  manner.  They  seem  indeed  to  have 
been  derived  from  ancient  MSS.  at  least  for  the  most  part. 
While  therefore  we  may  alloio  the  insertion  of  1  John  v.  7  in 
the  thirteenth  century  in  the  reign  of  Haitho  (1224-1270), 
we  are  reluctant  to  admit  a  general  corruption  of  the  Arme- 
nian from  the  Latin  at  the  same  time.  No  proof  of  it  has 
yet  been  adduced.  All  that  has  been  said  for  it  resolves 
itself  into  conjecture.* 

Hug  assigns  to  the  text  a  mixed  character,  because  he 
thinks  that  the  readings  of  the  old  Syriac,  the  MS.  brought 
from  Ephesus,  and  Alexandrine  copies  all  contributed  to  it  at 
first,  t  This  explanation  is  unsatisfactory  and  useless.  Nor 
is  Eichhorn's  account  better,  because  it  rests  on  his  peculiar 
view  of  recensions.  In  general  the  text  is  of  the  western 
class,  including  both  families  of  it.  This  explains  the  agree- 
ment of  it  with  D.  the  old  Latin,  the  Peshito,  B.  and  Origen, 
though  the  agreement  is  not  such  as  is  uniform  or  consistent 
throughout  a  single  book  or  epistle.  The  text  is  apparently 
in  an  imperfect  state,  and  still  needs  to  be  critically  revised 
and  edited  from  ancient  MSS.  Many  of  the  readings  peculiar 
to  itself  are  simple  mistakes,  or  are  owing  to  the  licenses  taken 
by  the  translator  or  transcribers. 
*  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  vol.  v.  pp.  84,  85.  t  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  3.52. 


218  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

Examples  of  readings  coinciding  with  the  Peshito  are  such 
as  Mark  ii.  25  'O  'irtsovg  sXsysv,  where  the  Syriac  has  abroTg  be- 
sides ;  vi.  6,  xoj/Muc  without  x-jxXw  /  viii.  24,  25,  sha  is  omitted 
between  TsoiTarouvrag  and  TaXiv  /  ix.  4,  ffuv  Mwffs/"  suXXaXouvTsg  / 
ix.  29,  vriSnia.  xa,i  'TT^offsu^fj  /  X.  43,  yivigdai  sv  v/m7v  fjAyag  ;  Xli. 
33,  Igiv  tSjv  oXoxavru/i^drMv  Without  'jrdvrcu'j  y  Xli,  38,  kui  (piXouvroj 
dff7raff//,ovg.  Luke  ii.  49,  or/  sv  rui  oixui  rov  'xar^og  y  ix,  6,  xara 
xujf/jag  Kai  Tiard  ToXsig.  Matt.  XXVlii,  18,  xa/  sm-i  yrig'  xal  xadug 
d'TTiSTokxi  [Ml  6  ■TtaTYi^  (JjOV.^  Tidyu  d'TroSTsXkM  bfijag. 

Examples  where  other  ancient  authorities,  especially  D, 
and  the  old  Latin  coincide  with  it  are.  Matt,  xv.  32,  where 
after  r^iTg  are  inserted  s/V/i/,  xai ;  Matt,  xviii.  33,  ohx  'ibn  oZv 
xai  (Si.  Matt.  xix.  10,  instead  of  roZ  dvd^ui-Trov  there  is  rov  dvd^og 
in  the  Armenian,  D,,  old  Latin,  &c.     Mark  ii.  9,  uvays  sig  rhv 

olxov  eov  for  T?g/'Tar&/  y  ii.   26,  'i(paysv,   xai  eduxs ovsi,   oug 

ohx  s^scr/,  &C.  ;  iv.  39,  TU)  dv'ifiM  xai  Trj  daXdffSyj  xai  sJts  y  V.  33, 
di'  0  vi'TToirtxii  Xdd^a  is  inserted  after  r^s/x,ouaa.  More  frequently 
other  witnesses  agree,  such  as  Origen,  in  John  iv.  30,  46 ; 
Galat.  iv.  21,  25,  &c.* 

The  Armenian  version  was  not  printed  till  after  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  In  1662  it  was  determined  by 
the  Armenian  bishops  at  a  Synod,  to  have  the  Bible  printed 
in  their  language  in  Europe.  For  this  purpose  Uscan,  as  he 
is  commonly  called,  of  Erivan,  was  despatched  to  Europe, 
After  various  fruitless  efforts,  the  whole  Bible  was  printed  at 
Amsterdam  in  1666  4to,  In  1668  appeared  the  New  Testa- 
ment alone  8vo.  La  Croze  was  the  first  who  charged  bishop 
Uscan,  as  he  is  termed,  (though  he  was  not  properly  a  bishop) 
with  altering  the  text  according  to  the  Vulgate.f  Later 
editions,  of  which  Uscan's  was  the  basis,  were  issued  in  1705 

*  See  Eichhorn,  Einleit.  vol.  v.  p.  80,  et  seq.  ;  and  Hug,  Einleit. 
vol,  i.  p.  353. 

"I"  Thesaurus  Epistol.  Lacrozianus,  vol.  ii.  p.  290  ;  and  in  Masch's  Lc 
Long,  vol.  ii.  part  1,  pp.  17.5,  176. 


ARMENIAN   VERSION.  219 

4to,  at  Constantinople,  and  in  1 733  at  Venice  in  folio.  A  much 
better  one  was  published  by  Dr.  J.  Zohrab  at  Venice  in  1789 
8vo.  As  the  Uscan  edition  contained  1  John  v.  7,  this  has 
the  same  passage  with  an  asterisk,  for  the  editor  was  reluctant 
to  leave  it  out,  though  it  was  found  in  no  Armenian  MS.,  as 
he  himself  admitted  to  Professor  Alter  of  Vienna.*  This 
edition  was  reprinted  in  1816. 

In  1805  Dr.  Zohrab  prepared  and  published  a  critical 
edition  one  volume  folio,  or  four  vols.  8vo.  The  text  was  printed 
chiefly  from  a  Cilician  MS.  of  the  fourteenth  century ;  but  the 
editor  collated  it  with  eight  MSS.  of  the  whole  Bible  and 
twenty  of  the  New  Testament,  the  various  readings  of  which 
are  subjoined  in  the  lower  margin.f  The  text  of  this  edition 
was  collated  for  Scholz  by  Cirbied,  professor  of  the  Armenian 
language  at  Paris,  and  several  monks.  Another  edition  was 
published  at  Petersburg!!  in  1814,  and  another  at  Moscow 
in  1834.  It  was  stated  to  Tischendorf  by  Aucher  in  1843, 
that  he  and  other  monks  in  the  island  of  St.  Lazarus  near 
Venice  had  undertaken  a  new  critical  edition.  We  cannot  tell 
whether  it  has  yet  been  published. 

The  extracts  from  this  version  in  our  critical  editions  of  the 
Greek  Testament  are  still  vejy  incomplete.  Indeed  the  state 
of  the  version  itself  is  unsettled.  Ancient  MSS.  of  it  would  be 
very  desirable ;  but  there  are  none  reaching  beyond  the 
twelfth  century.  And  none  believed  to  be  prior  to  Haitho  have 
been  examined  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  if  they  have  1  John 
V.  7.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it  was  in  none  of  Zohrab's  MSS. ; 
but  that  does  not  settle  the  question  of  its  interpolation  in  the 
thirteenth  century.  It  must  first  be  proved,  that  one  of  the 
MSS.  at  least  was  prior  to  the  time  of  Haitho.     But  none  of 

*  See  Michaelis's  Introduction  by  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  p.  616,  translator's  note. 
t   On  what  authority  some  state  that  Zohrab  used  sixty-nine  MSS. 
)'.  e.  eight  of  the  entire  Bible,  and  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  we  arc 
unable  to  say. 


220  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

them  was  so  old.      The  oldest  belonged  to  the  fourteenth 
century. 

We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  there  has  been  little 
use  in  employing  the  Armenian,  though  it  has  been  styled  the 
queen  of  versions,  in  the  criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament. 
The  suspicious  circumstances  it  has  passed  through,  the  altera- 
tions it  has  undergone,  and  the  want  of  ancient  MSS.  of  its 
text,  combine  to  shew  that  it  may  be  safely  dispensed  with  at 
the  present  time. 


CHAPTEK  XV. 


GEORGIAN  AND  OTHER  VERSIONS. 

The  Georgian  or  Iberian  version  was  taken  from  the  Greek  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  from  the  original  in  the  New.  It  is 
supposed  to  have  been  made  in  the  sixth  century.  The  edition 
published  at  Moscow  in  1743  folio  was  interpolated  from  the 
Slavonian  version  by  the  Georgian  princes  Arkil  and  Wacuset. 
Another  was  published  in  1816  at  the  same  place.  It  was 
from  this  latter  that  Petermann  reprinted  the  epistle  to  Phile- 
mon by  way  of  specimen  at  Berlin  1844.  The  version  has 
been  little  used  in  critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
because  it  was  interpolated  so  early  from  the  Slavonic,  and 
because  so  few  have  given  their  attention  to  it.  Alter  collected 
various  readings  from  it  and  discoursed  very  learnedly  of  its 
nature  in  a  volume  published  at  Vienna  in  1798  8vo.  Few 
except  Petermann  have  since  understood  or  studied  the  lan- 
guage. According  to  Scholz  and  Tischendorf,  there  are  a 
number  of  ancient  MSS.  of  it  in  the  monastery  of  the  Holy 
Cross  near  Jerusalem.  Two  MSS.  of  the  gospels  are  known 
to  be  in  the  Vatican.  There  is  no  use  in  this  version  for 
critical  purposes.  It  should  be  henceforward  discarded  as  a 
source  of  various  readings. 

PERSIAN. 

There  is  a  version  of  the  gospels  in  the  Persian  language 
published  by  Wheloc  and  Pierson  at  London  in  folio,  which  is 
said  to  have  two  title  pages,  one  dated  1652  the  other  1657. 


222  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

One  is  Quatitor  ecangelia  Domini  nostri  Jesu,  Christi  Persice, 
ad  numerum  sifumque  verhorum  Latine  data.  The  other  is, 
Quatuor  evangeliwum  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  versio  Persica^ 
Syriacam  et  Arahicam  suavissime  redolens :  ad  verha  et  mentem 
Graeci  textus  Jideliter  et  venuste  concinnata. 

It  is  not  easy  to  tell  the  source  or  sources  of  this  version. 
We  learn  from  Pierson's  preface,  that  Wheloc  had  three  MSS. 
of  the  Persic  gospels,  one  from  Oxford,  another  from  Cam- 
bridge, the  third  a  MS.  belonging  to  Pococke.  But  the  only 
Persic  MS.  Pococke  had  contained  the  text  printed  in  the 
London  Polyglott,  which  was  not  made  directly  from  the 
Greek  but  the  Syriac.  Hence  Wheloc  must  have  used  both 
Persic  and  Syriac  MSS.  If  so,  the  text  is  of  a  mixed  character 
and  of  no  value.  Though  it  be  regarded  as  taken  from  the 
Greek,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  was  wholly  so.  The  criticism 
of  the  New  Testament  should  discard  all  Persian  versions  as 
worthless. 

ARABIC  VERSIONS. 

It  has  been  thought  that  two  Arabic  versions  of  the  New 
Testament  taken  immediately  from  the  Greek  have  been  pub- 
lished, and  accordingly  they  have  been  used  as  such  by  critical 
editors  of  the  Greek  Testament.  But  one  of  them  must  be 
dislodged  from  the  position  it  has  so  long  occupied  in  the  esti- 
mation of  scholars.  The  Arabic  version  of  the  gospels  must 
be  discarded  as  useless,  for  it  was  not  made  from  the  original 
but  from  the  Vulgate.  We  should  therefore  consistently  omit 
all  mention  of  the  version  in  question.  But  we  shall  just 
allude  to  the  various  impressions  of  it  for  the  purpose  of  shewing 
what  an  inextricable  jumble  has  been  made  of  its  text  by 
means  of  MSS.,  which  are  of  no  value,  arbitrary  changes  of 
editors,  and  readings  out  of  other  versions,  including  the  Vul- 
gate in  the  condition  it  was  found  in  by  the  scholars  who 
superintended  the  printing  of  the  Arabic. 


ARABIC    VERSIONS.  223 

1.  A  version  of  tlie  four  gospels  first  printed  at  the  Medi- 
cean  press  in  Rome,  1591  folio,  in  Arabic  alone.  In  the  same 
year  and  from  the  same  press  issued  another  in  Arabic  and 
Latin  (interlinear),  folio,  Avith  many  rude  pictures  interspersed 
throughout  the  pages.  The  Latin  version  was  annexed  by  J. 
Baptista  Raymundus.  The  relation  between  these  two  edi- 
tions has  not  been  clearly  pointed  out.  Indeed  they  are  often 
confounded.  Those  who  speak  of  one  usually  mean  the  Arabic 
and  Latin  one,  which  was  reprinted  in  1619  folio  5  or  rather 
the  edition  of  1619  is  the  very  same  with  a  new  title-page. 
The  text  of  this  edition  was  transferred  to  the  Paris  Poly- 
glott. 

2.  Another  impression  of  the  same  version  was  taken  from 
a  Leyden  MS.  and  published  by  Erpenius  or  Erpen  in  1616, 
from  1  MS.  of  upper  Egypt  belonging  to  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury. Erpen  also  consulted  in  preparing  this  edition  the 
Medicean  one,  which  he  found  to  deviate  frequently  from  his 
own  MS.  in  the  first  thirteen  chapters  of  Matthew,  but  in 
other  places  to  be  in  much  greater  accordance  with  it,  and 
some  old  MSS.  which  are  not  described,  so  that  we  cannot  tell 
whether  they  were  used  in  the  gospels  alone,  or  in  the  other 
books  of  the  New  Testament.  The  other  parts  of  Erpenius's 
edition  are  not  from  the  Vulgate.  It  was  made  from  the  old 
Syriac  in  the  Acts  and  epistles. 

3.  Another  impression  was  that  in  the  Paris  Polyglott 
1645.  Gabriel  Sionita,  under  whose  care  the  version  was 
prepared  for  the  press,  followed  the  Medicean  text  (the  Arabic 
and  Latin  edition),  but  not  closely  or  constantly.  He  made 
many  alterations  in  it,  not  merely  for  the  sake  of  grammatical 
purity,  but  other  clianges,  even  where  MSS.  agree  independ- 
ently of  one  another. 

4.  Another  impression  was  printed  in  the  London  Poly- 
glott 1657.  Here  Castell  appears  to  have  repeated  Sionita's 
alterations,  and  to  have  taken  none  from  Walton's  MS.,  though 


224  BIBLICAL   CRITICLSM. 

it  frequently  departs  from  the  Medicean  and  Erpenian  texts. 
Walton  sajs  nothing  of  its  being  used  in  the  Polyglott. 

5.  A  fifth  impression  appeared  at  Rome  1703  folio,  from 
the  Propaganda  press.  This  is  the  Karshuni  New  Testament, 
containing  both  the  Peshito  and  the  Arabic. 

All  these  impressions  were  ultimately  derived  from  three 
MSS.j  viz.  those  at  the  basis  of  the  Roman,  Erpenian,  and 
Karshuni  texts  ;  for  the  text  of  the  Paris  Polyglott  follows  the 
Roman  with  alterations  we  know  not  whence  taken ;  the  text 
of  the  London  Polyglott  follows  the  Paris  one ;  and  the  text 
of  the  Karshuni  edition  was  from  a  Cyprian  MS.  Thus  the 
printed  Arabic  gospels  resolve  themselves  into  the  Roman, 
Leyden,  and  Cyprian  MSS. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  all  exhibit  the  text  of  one  and 
the  same  version ;  since  Storr  proved  the  substantial  same- 
ness of  it  in  them.  * 

John,  bishop  of  Seville  in  the  eighth  century,  translated 
the  Scriptures  into  Arabic  from  the  Vulgate  or  Jerome's  Latin 
version.  Now  the  Roman  edition  of  the  gospels  which  was 
the  first  printed  was  not  from  the  Greek  original,  but  was  taken 
from  a  MS.  containing  the  version  made  in  Spain  from  the 
Latin.  Its  resemblance  to  the  Vulgate  has  always  led  to  the 
opinion  that  it  was  altered  by  the  Roman  censors  to  accord 
with  the  Vulgate ;  but  it  has  been  shewn  that  it  is  the  Arabic 
version  which  was  originally  made  in  Spain  from  the  Latin 
itself.  Professor  Juynboll  of  Leyden  has  proved  this  from  an 
examination  of  an  Arabic  MS.  at  Franeker,  which  contains  the 
same  Arabic  version,  "j"  Hence  the  evidences  adduced  by  Hug  \ 
and  others  for  the  purpose  of  demonstrating  a  Greek  original 
are  nugatory.  They  merely  serve  to  shew  that  it  has  been 
interpolated  from  the  Greek,  and  that  too  in  a  very  bungling 
and  ignorant  way.     It  has  also  suffered  interpolation  from  the 

*  Dissertat.  Inaug.  Grit,  de  Evangeliis  Arabicis,  Tiibingen,  1775  4to. 
t  Letterkvmdige  Bijdragen,  Leyden,  1838.  J  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  389. 


ARABIC   VERSIONS.  225 

Sjriac  and  Coptic,  This  was  natural  and  almost  unavoidable 
from  the  way  in  which  it  was  used.  When  the  Syrians  began 
to  feel  the  want,  they  adopted  the  Arabic  as  their  church  ver- 
sion, and  altered  it  to  a  certain  degree  of  conformity  with  their 
old  church  version,  the  Peshito. 

So  too  the  Copts  adapted  the  Arabic  to  thei7^  ancient  church 
version.  When  the  Syrians  and  Copts  did  so  they  wrote  both 
together  in  MSS.  side  by  side,  so  as  to  have  a  Syro- Arabic 
and  an  Arabico-Coptic  text  respectively  ;  and  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  Arabic  would  not  be  kept  pure  in  such  circumstances. 
The  procedure  of  the  Arabic  copyists  and  the  way  in  which 
they  confounded  different  texts  may  be  seen  from  a  MS.  at 
Vienna,  No.  43,  which  in  the  gospels  has  numerous  various 
readings  between  the  lines  and  in  the  margin,  with  the  sources 
indicated,  such  as  the  Peshito,  the  Memphitic  version,  and  the 
Greek  text. 

As  to  the  persons  who  first  adapted  and  regulated  the 
Arabico-Coptic  and  Syro- Arabian  texts,  the  accounts  are  un- 
certain. In  the  MS.  from  which  Erpenius  printed  the  Leyden 
text  there  is  a  subscription.  But  Erpenius  printed  no  more 
than  a  Latin  translation  of  it.*  This  subscription  speaks  of 
Nesjulamam  the  son  of  Azalkesat.  Michaelis  and  Hug  think 
that  it  was  he  who  altered  the  Arabic  text  according  to  the 
Coptic  version.  But  Erpenius  and  Storr  infer  that  he  was  the 
translator.  If  the  codex  of  Erpenius  be  now  in  the  library  of 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  there  can  be  no  room  for  diversity 
of  opinion  as  to  the  person  mentioned  being  merely  the  tran- 
scriber.    And  indeed  the  subscription  of  the  codex  now  there, 

*  It  is  this  : — Absoluta  est  libri  hujus  descriptio  die  16  mensis 
Baunae  (16  Jun.)  anno  988  martyrum  justorum.  Descriptus  autem  est 
ex  emendatissimo  exemplari,  cujus  descriptor  ait,  se  id  descripsisse  ex 
alio  exemplari  emendato,  exarato  manu  Johannis  episcopi  Coptitae,  qui 
Johannes  dicit,  se  suum  descripsisse  ex  exemplari  emendatissimo,  quod 
edidit  D.  Nesjulamam  F.  Azalkesati. 
VOL.    II.  Q 


226  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

whether  it  be  identical  with  that  of  Erpenius  or  not,  shews 
that  he  was  not  the  translator.  It  is  quite  probable  however 
tliat  Dr.  Lee  is  correct  in  identifying  the  two  MSS. ;  if  so, 
the  public  are  indebted  to  him  for  the  subscription  in  its  proper 
language  and  a  correct  Latin  version.  The  reasons  he  gives 
for  the  identity  of  both  are  very  plausible.* 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  text  of  each  impression  separately. 

1.  The  Roman  text  has  been  examined  most  successfully 
by  JuynboU. 

2.  That  of  Erpen  was  derived  from  a  Coptic- Arabic  MS. 

3.  The  text  of  the  Paris  Polyglott  was  taken  from  the 
Roman  edition,  with  some  alterations  made  by  Gabriel  Sionita. 

4.  The  text  as  printed  in  the  London  Polyglott  was  a  re- 
impression  of  the  Paris  text.  Marsh  says  f  it  was  not  a  bare 
reimpression,  referring  to  Walton's  Prolegomena  xiv.  §  17,  and 
Mill's  Prolegomena,  §  1295  ;  but  Walton  says  nothing  to  the 
purpose  in  that  section.  Mill  indeed  states  that  the  London 
text  was  amended  and  supplied  in  many  places  with  the  aid  of 
MSS.,  but  the  assertion  rests  on  no  basis.  As  long  as  Walton 
himself  says  nothing  of  the  MS.  he  had  being  used  by  Castell, 
and  in  the  absence  of  a  collation  of  the  two  texts,  we  must 
hold  that  the  one  is  a  mere  reimpression  of  the  other. 

5.  The  Carshuni  New  Testament,  printed  at  the  propa- 
ganda press  at  Rome  for  the  use  of  the  Maronites,  contains  the 
same  text  as  the  Erpenian  of  the  gospels.  It  was  printed  from 
a  MS.  brought  from  Cyprus,  which  MS.  the  editors  preferred 

*  His  translation  of  the  subscription  is  this  : — "  Fuit  cessatio  a  de- 
scribendo  hunc  librum  (die)  16  mensis  Bauna,  anno  988  Martyrum 
sanctorum  (a.d.  1272).  Et  descriptus  est  hie  liber  ex  exemplari  cujus 
descriptor  memoriae  prodidit,  se  id  ex  exemplari  a  manu  Johannis  Epis- 
copi  Coptorum  scripto,  descripsisse.  Dixerat  praeterea  Johannes  memo- 
ratus,  se  hoc  descripsisse  ex  exemplari  manuscripto,  quod  senex  Nash 
Antistes  ille,  filius  Iz  El  Kafah,  contulerat."  Prolegomena  to  Bagster's 
Polyglott,  p.  45. 

t  Notes  to  Michaclis's  Introduction,  vol.  ii.  p.  603. 


ARABIC   VERSIONS.  227 

to  several  others  they  had,  on  account  of  its  accuracy.  One 
column  contains  the  Peshito,  the  other  the  Carshuni. 

But  we  have  dwelt  too  long  on  a  version  which  is  only 
tnediate.  Henceforth  let  it  be  entirely  banished  from  the 
region  of  criticism  as  useless. 

In  the  London  and  Paris  Polyglotts  is  another  Arabic  ver- 
sion, containing  the  Acts,  Pauline,  and  Catholic  epistles,  and 
the  Apocalypse.  It  is  stated  by  the  printer  of  the  Paris  Poly- 
glott,  Anthony  Vitre,  that  the  MS.  from  which  these  books 
were  edited  came  from  Aleppo. 

Internal  evidence  shews  that  they  were  translated  directly 
from  the  Greek.  Thus  in  Acts  xix.  9,  rujawou  rmg  is,  one  of 
the  nohles  ;  xii.  13,  'Fohrij  a  proper  name,  is  rosa ;  xxviii.  11, 

xov^oig  is,  in  a  ship  of  Alexandria  which  had  wintered  in  that  island 
(belonging  to)  an  Alexandrian  named  Dioscorides  ;  2  Corinth. 
VI.  14,  [1,71  ymsk  iTt^oi^uyovvTsg  roTg  ocxieroig,  let  not  your  scales  in- 
cline towards  unbelievers;  Jude,  verse  12,  ovroi  tiffiv  h  raTg 
ayd'xaiQ  auruv  (fmXddsg,  suvi\jUi-)(p{)n,ivoi^  these  are  tliey  who  cause 
their  prostitutes  to  recline  with  them  at  feasts. 

Hug  does  not  ventm-e  to  class  the  Apocalypse  along  with 
the  other  books  as  proceeding  from  the  same  hand ;  but  holds 
the  common  origin  of  the  rest,  relying  on  a  similarity  in  the 
language  and  mode  of  translation,  difficult  passages  being 
often  paraphrased,  united  with  careful  fidelity  in  rendering, 
especially  in  the  case  of  words  compounded  with  (Lsrd,  euv 
and  ir^o. 

It  has  also  been  supposed  that  the  text  has  not  escaped 
foreign  additions.  The  same  word  is  frequently  translated 
twice ;  and  small  clauses  are  also  rendered  twice  in  different 
words.  Comp.  Acts  xv.  15,  28;  xvi.  37,  39;  xxi.  11,13, 
27 ;  Acts  viii.  7.  The  same  critic  thinks  that  the  Apocalypse 
was  translated  from  a  MS.  interpolated  from  the  scholia  of 
Andreas  of  Cappadocia. 


228  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

The  author  himself  has  indicated  the  country  he  belonged 
to  in  Acts  ii.  9,  where  he  renders,  the  parts  of  Libya  about 
Gyrene^  "  the  parts  of  Africa,  which  is  our  country y  It  would 
appear  therefore  that  he  belonged  to  Cyrene.  Hence  the 
reading  Al  Franjia  which  occurs  with  the  word  Italy  in 
Acts  in  xviii.  2,  was  of  later  origin  than  the  version  itself. 
In  the  time  of  the  Crusades,  we  could  not  expect  so  accurate 
a  knowledge  of  Greek  in  the  parts  about  Cyrene.* 

The  text  of  it  belongs  to  the  Constantinopolitan  or 
Eastern  class,  as  is  apparent  from  a  partial  collation  of  it 
made  by  Hug.    Thus  in  Acts  ii.  7,  Xsyovrsg  v^hg  aXXrjXovg,  whereas 

A.  C*,  the  Memphitic,  and  ^Ethiopic,  omit  •tt^o?  dXXTjXoug ;  ii.  23, 
ixSorov  Xa^ovTsg  dia  x^'S^^i  contrary  to  A.  C,  the  Syi'iac,  Arme- 
nian, Memphitic,  ^Ethiopic,  Vulgate  5  ii.  30,  ri  xara  ffagxa  dmc- 
ryjffsiv  rhv  Xgiffrov  which  it  has,  is  omitted  in  A.  C.  D**,  Syriac, 
Memphitic,  ^thiopic,  Vulgate.  In  1  Corinth,  vii.  3, 6(piiXo/j.svriv 
ivvoiav,  differing  from  the  oipsiX-^v  of  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G., 
Memphitic,  Bashmuric,  ^thiopic,  Armenian.  1  Corinth,  vii.  5, 
7-^  vrjffTiicc  -/.at  rfi  T^offiv^^f  in   opposition  to  the  rfi  'X^oasuxfi  of  A. 

B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  Bashmuric,  ^thiopic,  &c ;  vii.  13,  a(pisTo 
auroi/,  in   opposition  to   dpi'sro  rhv  avh^a   of  A.   B.    C.   D.   E.   F. 

G.,  &c.  t 

The  value  of  this  version  is  very  small.  It  is  modern, 
and  represents  a  modern  form  of  the  text.  It  is  not  worth 
collating  for  critical  purposes,  and  may  be  safely  neglected. 
Indeed  we  can  see  no  need  for  it  in  the  department  of  New 
Testament  criticism. 

It  is  stated  by  Hug  that  the  text  which  was  reprinted 
in  the  London  Polyglott  from  the  Paris  one,  was  repeated  in 
the  New  Testament  part  of  the  Arabic  Bible  printed  at  New- 
castle on  Tyne  1811  4to,  under  the  superintendence  of  Prof. 
Carlyle.:^ 

*  See  Hug's  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  397,  et  seq.  f  Ibid,  p.  401. 

X  Ibid,  p.  402. 


ARABIC   VERSIONS.  229 

An  Arabic  version  found  in  a  Vatican  MS.  (No.  13)  by 
Scholz,  and  partially  collated  by  him,  contains  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  the  Pauline  epistles.  The  version  was  made  from 
the  Greek  at  Emesa  in  Syria  by  Daniel  Philentolos  and  his 
son,  as  appears  from  the  Greek  postscript.  The  text,  accord- 
ing to  Scliolz,  agrees  sometimes  with  the  Alexandrine,  some- 
times with  the  Constantinopolitan  MSS.  It  is  of  no  use 
in  criticism,  being  neither  ancient  nor  valuable.  The  name  of 
the  writer  of  the  Arabic  text  is  given.  Kerycus,  a  deacon, 
added  the  Greek  subscription  and  Greek  notes  in  the  margin.* 

*  See  Scliolz's  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  128  ;  Scholz's  Biblisch- 
kritische  Reise,  p.  117-126  ;  and  Hug,  vol.  i.  p.  394,  et  seq. 


IHAPTEK  XVI. 


GOTHIC    VEKSION. 

The  Maeso-Goths  were  a  Germanic  race  who  settled  on  the 
borders  of  the  Greek  empire,  and  their  language  is  substanti- 
ally a  Germanic  dialect.  Ulphilas,  or  Wulphilas,*  who  was 
ordained  first  bishop  of  the  Christian  Wisigoths  by  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia,  A.  d.  348,  translated  the  Bible  into  the  Gothic 
from  the  Greek,  i.  e.  from  the  Septuagint  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  the  original  in  the  New.  It  is  with  the  later  only 
we  are  at  present  concerned. 

Unfortunately  the  New  Testament  has  not  been  preserved 
entire,  as  far  as  yet  known. 

In  1665,  Francis  Junius  published  at  Dort,  in  Gothic 
letters  expressly  cast  for  the  purpose,  the  four  gospels  from 
the  celebrated  codex  argenteus  or  silver  MS.,  which  was 
accompanied  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  version  of  the  same  gospels 
under  the  editorship  of  Thomas  Marshall  an  Englishman. 
Junius  had  a  very  faithful  transcript  of  the  codex  made  by 
Derrer  which  accompanied  it  till  1702.  But  he  carefully  con- 
sulted the  original  codex  also. 

A  reprint  appeared  at  Amsterdam  in  1684.  The  version 
was  also  published,  with  various  improvements,  by  G.  Stirn- 
hielm  at  Stockholm  1671  4to,  from  Derrer's  transcript.    Arch- 

*  See  Gr.  Wait7„  Ueber  das  Leben  und  die  Lehre  des  Ulfila.  Han- 
over, 1840,  4to. 


(iOTHlC   VERSION.  231 

bishop  Benzelius  of  Upsal  made  preparations  for  a  new 
edition,  but  dying  in  the  meantime,  it  was  published  by- 
Edward  Lye  at  Oxford,  1750  4to. 

Soon  after,  fragments  of  the  Gothic  version  of  Paul's 
epistle  to  the  Romans  were  discovered  by  F.  A.  Knittel  in  a 
MS.  belonging  to  the  Wolfenblittel  library  at  Brunswick, 
which  he  edited  and  gave  to  the  public  in  1762  4to.  They 
were  again  edited  by  Johann  Hire,  at  Upsal,  1763  4to,  and 
included  in  the  collection  of  treatises  written  by  Ihre  in  illus- 
tration of  the  version  and  its  codices,  which  Busching  edited 
at  Berlin,  1773  4to. 

In  1808,  J.  Ch.  Zahn  published  both  the  gospels  and  the 
fragments  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  one  edition,  4tu, 
at  Weissenfels.  The  gospels  were  printed  here  from  a  very 
exact  transcript  of  the  codex  argenteus  made  for  Ihre  many 
years  before,  which  after  passing  through  the  hands  of 
Busching  and  another,  came  into  those  of  Zahn.  This  edition 
contains  a  literal  Latin  interlinear  translation,  a  grammar  and 
glossary  by  Fulda  and  Bheinwald,  and  Ihre's  Latin  version 
by  the  side  of  the  text.  It  also  contains  a  critical  review, 
explanatory  notes,  and  an  introduction  from  the  pen  of  the 
editor. 

Other  fragments  were  discovered  by  Angelo  Mai  among 
the  rescript  MSS.  in  the  Ambrosian  library  at  Milan,  in  the 
year  1817.  Having  communicated  his  discoveries  to  Count 
Castiglioni,  the  latter  joined  him  in  his  researches.  The 
fi'agments  discovered  were  printed  successively  at  Milan 
partly  under  the  joint  care  of  both,  but  chiefly  by  Castiglioni, 
in  1819,  1829,  1834,  1835,  1839.  These  fragments  contain 
considerable  portions  of  Paul's  epistles,  except  that  to  the 
Hebrews,  with  two  parts  of  Matthew's  gospel ;  and  have  been 
admirably  edited. 

But  the  most  complete  edition — that  which  surpasses  all 
the  rest  in  accurate  and  scholarly  treatment  of  tlie  version — is 


232  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

that  published  bj  II.  C.  cle  Gabelentz  and  Dr.  J.  Loebe  in 
two  volumes  4to  at  Leipzig,  vol.  i.  1836;  vol.  ii.  part  1, 1843. 
part  2,  1846.  This  work  contains  a  Latin  version,  a  Gothic 
grammar  and  dictionary  with  critical  annotations.  The  text 
is  in  Roman  type. 

Having  spoken  of  the  principal  editions,  we  must  allude 
to  the  remarkable  MS.  of  the  gospels  from  which  they  have 
been  printed. 

The  codex  argenteus  has  been  always  regarded  with  interest 
since  it  was  first  known.  It  consists  of  188  pages  in  quarto 
size,  on  very  thin,  smooth  vellum,  which  is  mostly  of  a  purple 
colour.  On  this  the  letters  which  are  uncial  were  afterwards 
made  in  silver,  the  initials  and  some  others  excepted,  which 
are  in  gold.  To  the  latter  belong  the  first  three  lines  of  Luke 
and  Mark's  gospels,  which  are  imprinted  with  gold  foil,  as 
were  probably  those  of  Matthew  and  John's  gospels.  Michaelis 
conjectured  that  the  letters  were  either  imprinted  with  a  warm 
iron,  or  cut  with  a  graver  and  afterwards  coloured.  But  it 
has  been  since  proved  that  each  letter  is  ijainted.  Most  of  the 
silver  letters  have  become  green  in  the  progress  of  time,  but 
the  golden  ones  are  still  in  a  good  state  of  preservation.  Some 
parts  of  the  codex  have  a  pale  violet  hue.  It  is  not  entire, 
being  supposed  to  have  contained  at  first  320  pages.  The 
history  of  this  MS.  has  been  a  chequered  one.  It  is  thought 
to  have  belonged  to  Alaric,  King  of  Toulouse,  whose  palace 
was  destroyed  by  Clovis  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century, 
but  others  say  that  it  belonged  to  Amalric,  who  was  conquered 
by  Childebert,  A.  d.  531.  The  MS.  was  preserved  for  centu- 
ries in  the  Benedictine  monastery  of  Werden  in  Westphalia, 
where  it  was  discovered  by  one  Marillon  in  1597.  From  this 
place  it  was  transmitted  during  a  war  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury to  Prague,  for  security.  When  that  city  was  stormed  by 
the  Swedes  in  1648,  the  book  fell  into  the  liands  of  Count 
Konigsmark,  who  presented  it  to  Queen  Christina.     By  her  it 


GOTHIC   VERSION.  233 

was  presented  to  the  Royal  Lilbraiy  at  Stockholm,  whence  it 
disappeared  during  the  commotion  which  preceded  her  abdi- 
cation, having  been  taken  to  the  Netherlands  bj  Isaac 
Vossius,  librarian  to  the  Swedish  Queen.  Perhaps  the  Queen 
made  him  a  present  of  it ;  for  it  is  hardly  probable  that  he 
stole  it.  It  was  in  the  Netherlands  that  Junius  examined  it 
and  reduced  it  to  order.  Some  say  that  the  Count  de  la 
Gardie  purchased  it  of  Vossius,  and  presented  it  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  Upsal ;  others  that  it  was  Charles  XII.  who  pm- 
chased  it  back  and  presented  it  to  the  University. 

It  is  not  likely  that  it  is  the  very  copy  which  Ulphilas 
himself  wrote,  since  Benzelius,  Ihre,  and  others  have  dis- 
covered various  readings  in  some  of  its  margins,  shewing 
it  to  have  been  written  when  there  were  several  copies  of  the 
version,  probably  in  Italy,  where  Latin  readings  were  put  in 
its  margin.  This  is  favom'ed  by  the  circumstance  that  the 
gospels  are  arranged  in  the  order,  Matthew,  John,  Luke, 
Mark,  the  same  order  as  that  which  they  exhibit  in  the 
Brescian  and  Veronian  MSS.  Other  internal  marks  adduced 
by  Hug  favour  tlie  same  country  as  the  birth-place  of  this 
celebrated  MS.,  where  it  must  have  been  made  at  the  latest 
in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  before  the  supremacy 
of  the  Goths  in  Italy  Avas  destroyed.* 

It  is  matter  of  regret  that  so  many  pages  are  wanting  in 
this  MS.  It  has  many  chasms  in  the  gospels.  It  is  deficient 
in  Matt.  i.  5— v.  15;  vi.  32— vii.  12;  x.  1-23;  xi.  25— xxvi. 
70;  xxviii.  1-20.  Mark  vi.  31-54;  xii.  38— xiii.  18;  xiii. 
29— xiv.  5;  xiv.  16-41;  xvi.  12-20.  Luke  x.  30— xiv.  9; 
xvi.  24 — xvii.  3  ;  xx.  37-47.  John  i.  1 — v.  45 ;  xi.  47 — xii. 
1  ;  xii.  49 — xiii.  11  ;  xix.  13-42.  Individual  verses  here 
and  there  have  also  suffered  mutilation,  and  some  are  almost 
illegible  from  age. 

Some  have  held  that  the  original  language  of  the  codex 
*  See  Eiuleit.  vol.  i.  pp.  443,  444. 


234  BIBLICAL   CKITICISM. 

argenteus  is  Frankisli,  as  La  Croze,  Wetstein,  and  Micliaeiis. 
But  the  character  of  the  dialect  itself,  containing  as  it  does 
Greek  and  Latin  words,  as  well  as  the  discovery  of  several 
specimens  of  the  Ostro-Gothic  tongue  in  Italy  resembling  the 
character  and  language  of  the  codex  argenteus,  prove  that 
the  language  is  Moeso- Gothic — the  most  ancient  specimen 
extant  of  the  Teutonic  language.  It  belongs  to  the  fourth 
centmy. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  tliat  the  version  was  made  directly 
from  the  Greek.  This  is  testified  by  Simeon  Metaphrastes,* 
and  the  character  of  the  work  itself.  Thus  the  orthography 
observed  in  it  is  borrowed  from  the  Greek ;  the  etymological 
sense  of  words  is  exhibited ;  terms  are  confounded  in  such  a 
way  as  to  shew  the  translator  had  the  Greek  before  him ;  and 
Greek  constructions  are  imitated — for  example,  the  use  of 
attraction,  &c.  Thus  i  is  generally  written  ei  as  in  Greek ; 
sokjts,  thou  seekest,  sohjeis.  b7^oyM-j7>JjiJijara  is  etymologically 
rendered  alahrunste,  Mark  xii.  33 ;  gxfjvo'^rriy/a,  hlethrasta- 
keins,  John  vii.  3 ;  syxahia  innjugitha^  innovation^  John  x. 
22.  In  Luke  vii.  25  r^v^pyi  has  been  confounded  with  r^o(pfi  ; 
Romans  xi.  33,  an^iovljvr,Ta  is  translated  as  if  it  were  avi^- 
gggra,  &C.  &C. 

According  to  Hug,  the  version  was  made  from  a  Greek 
MS.  belonging  to  the  Constantinopolitan  or  Lucianic  recen- 
sion ;  and  in  order  to  shew  this  he  adduces  readings  from  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  Mark,  the  seventh  chapter  of  1  Corinth- 
ians, the  fourth  and  fifth  of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
placing  what  he  calls  the  Lucian  (and  Gothic)  readings  over 
against  the  Hesychian  (Egyptian)  readings,  f  Eichhorn 
adopts  the  same  view,  adding  that  the  Byzantine  text  as 
exhibited  in  it  is  strongly  mixed  with  the  Hesychian.  |  But 
it  is  more   correct  to  affirm  that  it  belongs  to  no  particular 

*  In  Acta  Septemb.  v.  41.  ed.  Antverp. 
■]■  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  4oo,  et  seq.  X  Einleit.  vol.  v.  p.  !)0. 


GOTHIC   VERSION.  235 

class  of  documents,  neither  to  the  eastern  nor  western.  It  is 
between  the  oldest  condition  of  the  text  and  that  found  in  the 
junior  Constantinopolitan  codices.  Hence  it  agrees  with  both, 
but  with  neither  separately  or  continuously.  As  it  often 
coincides  with  the  oldest  MSS.  and  versions,  it  should  scarcely 
be  classed  with  the  junior  Constantinopolitan  recension.  Thus 
in  Matt.  vi.  18,  h  rw  (pam^uj^  is  omitted  by  it,  along  with 
the  most  ancient  codices ;  viii.  <S  its  reading  is  X6yw,  instead 
of  the  received  }.6yov,  agreeing  with  the  best  documents  B.  C, 
&C.J  ix.  13,  sJg /xsrdvoiav  is  left  out  with  B.  D.  V.  both  the 
Syriac  versions,  &c.  ;  ix.  35,  sv  rw  XauJ  is  omitted,  with  the 
same  ancient  class  of  authorities.  Matt.  xi.  2,  it  reads  d/a 
for  dvo  with  B.  C.  D.  P.  Z.  a,  both  the  Syriac,  Armenian,  &c. 
Comp.  also  Mark  i.  2,  11  ;  ii.  1,  17,  18,  20.  John  vi.  22. 
Romans  vii.  6  {d-7rodav6vTsg).  Galat.  ii.  14  (tws)  j  iv.  17  (i//a-a$)  ; 
iv.  26,  'xdvTuv  is  omitted.  1  Thes.  v.  3,  yag  is  omitted.  The 
paragraph  in  John  viii.  1,  &c.  is  omitted.  In  Luke  vi.  20, 
Tui  rrvsu/zari  is  added,  in  agreement  with  the  Arabic,  Armenian, 
Jerusalem  Syriac,  and  other  versions.* 

There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  text  often  agrees 
with  the  modern  one,  in  opposition  to  the  oldest  authorities. 
The  readings  adduced  by  Hug  for  this  purpose  are  appropriate, 
though  they  are  not  so  much  the  rule  as  he  asserts.  So  too 
in  Mark  i.  5,  16,  34 ;  John  vi.  40,  58,  69  ;  Romans  vii.  18,  25  ; 
viii.  38  ;  xi.  22 ;  xii.  11  ;  1  Corinth,  vii.  5  ;  Galat.  iii.  1 ;  iv.  6, 
15  ;  1  Thes.  ii.  15  ;  iv.  13.  Sometimes  it  has  the  usual  read- 
ing only  in  part,  as  Mark  xi.  10,  h  fm/j^an^  without  Kugiou ; 
Romans  viii.  1,  //,9i  Hard  (td^x.a  'ZipTcarovGiv^  without  dXXd  xard 
Ti/sLz/Aa.     It  also  unites  two  readings,  as  in  Matt.  vii.  8.t 

It  has  been  supposed  that  the  text  was  interpolated  at  an 
early  period  from  the  Latin  translation.  It  Latinises.  The 
influence  of  the  old  Latin  or  Vulgate  upon  it  is  easily  dis- 

*  See  Dc  Wette's   Einleituug,  p.  29. 
t  Ibid,  pp.  20,  3(1. 


236  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

cerned.  The  Goths  became  acquainted  in  Italy  with  copies 
of  the  old  Latin  version,  and  these  furnished  transcribers 
with  additions.  Sometimes  indeed,  the  Latin  was  written  by 
the  side  of  the  Gothic,  so  that  the  former  readily  contributed 
to  the  corruption  of  the  latter.  Readings  of  the  Latin  were 
also  written  in  the  margin,  whence  they  were  transferred  to 
the  text.  Ihre  enumerates  fourteen  marginal  notes  in  the 
codex  argenteus  which  would  have  been  partly  taken  into  the 
text  in  the  next  transcript.  Thus  at  Luke  ix.  34,  some  one 
put  the  Latin  reading  at  the  side,  et  intrantibus  illis  in  nicbem^ 
as  the  Verona  and  Brescian  MSS.  have  it.  In  consequence 
of  such  interpolations,  the  text  of  the  version  is  less  valuable 
than  it  would  liave  been. 

Many  of  these  Latin  appendages  can  be  traced.  Thus 
Matt.  X.  29,  TTjg  (SovXvi  is  added,  as  several  other  versions, 
including  the  old  Latin  read.  Mark  xiv.  65,  cum  voluntate  seu 
Ubenter.  Luke  i.  3,  et  spiritui sancto  is  added;  ix.  43  we  have 
the  addition  Dixit  Petrus^  Domine  quare  nos  non  potuimus 
ejicere  ilium :  Quihus  dixit :  quoniam  ejusmodi  oratione  ejicitur 
etjejunio  ;  ix.  50,  we  have  another  appendage  from  the  same 
source :  Nemo  est  enim  qui  non  faciat  virtutem  in  nomine  meo. 
Mark  vii.  3,  crebro.  Luke  ix.  20,  tu  es  Christus  jilius  Dei. 
2  Corinth,  v.  10,  'Ibia  instead  of  S/a.*  The  best  explanation 
of  these  peculiarities  is  that  adopted  by  Zahn  and  other  critics 
since  his  time,  viz.  that  the  text  was  altered  in  Italy  after 
Latin  MSS.  which  were  current  there.  We  know  that  the 
Gothic  was  known  in  Italy  in  the  ninth  century  when  the  cod. 
Brixianus  was  written  ;  and  that  its  departures  from  the  Latin 
had  been  noticed.  Gabelentz  and  Loebe  have  pointed  out 
several  marginal  Latin  readings  which  were  afterwards  taken 
into  the  text;  to  whicli  may  be  added  tlie  Euthalian  sub- 
scriptions.! 

*   Sec  Wetstcin's  Prolegomena,  p.  115. 
I  Prolegomena  to  vol.  i.  p.  23. 


GOTHIC   VERSION.  237 

It  has  been  supposed  by  the  two  most  recent  editors  of  the 
version,  that  the  two  Gothic  MSS.  contain  different  recensions, 
an  opinion  to  which  Hug  *  refuses  assent.  Differences  in  the 
grammatical  formation  of  separate  words  and  in  orthography- 
can  hardly  justify  the  truth  of  the  statement  made  by  Gabe- 
lentz  and  Loebe.  It  is  not  well  attested.  As  to  the  general 
character  of  the  version,  it  is  distinguished  by  literality,  fidelity, 
and  accuracy.  It  evinces  judgment,  learning,  and  skill  on  the 
part  of  bishop  Ulphilas. 

*  See  his  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  pp.  458,  459. 


CHAPTER   XYIT, 


SLAVONIC  VERSION. 

The  old  or  church  Slavic,  commonly  called  Slavonic  lan- 
guage, belongs  to  that  people  who  settled  at  an  early  period  on 
both  banks  of  the  Danube,  and  were  mostly  involved  in  the 
wars  of  the  two  Roman  empires. 

A  version  of  the  Bible  into  it  was  made  by  Constantine 
commonly  called  Cyril,  and  his  brother  Methodius,  who 
preached  the  gospel  in  the  ninth  century  to  the  Bulgarians 
and  Moravians,  and  invented  an  alphabet.  The  Septuagint  was 
followed  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  original  in  the  New. 

What  part  of  the  translation  was  performed  by  Cyril,  and 
what  by  Methodius,  cannot  now  be  ascertained.  It  is  probable 
that  Cyril  translated  at  first  the  gospels,  as  still  contained  in  a 
codex  of  A.D.  1144  in  the  library  of  the  Synod  at  Moscow. 
Perhaps  he  also  translated  most  of  the  New  Testament ; 
whereas  the  greater  part  at  least  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  done  by  Methodius.  The  most  ancient  exist- 
ing copy  of  the  whole  Bible  is  the  codex  of  Moscow,  of  a.d. 
1499  ;  and  that  is  thought  to  have  been  the  first  that  was  ever 
completed,  the  different  parts  not  having  been  collected  till 
then.  The  invention  of  the  alphabet  belongs  exclusively  to 
Cyril.  It  is  likely,  as  Kopitar  has  shewn,  that  the  old  Slavic 
language  in  the  time  of  Cyril  and  Methodius  was  peculiar  to 
the  Pannonic  or  Oarantano-Slaviy  the  Slovenzi  or  Vindes  of  the 


SLAVONIC   VERSTOK.  239 

present  times.  These  were  the  diocesans  of  Methodius,  for 
whom  the  Scriptures  were  first  translated,  being  carried 
at  a  later  period  to  the  Bulgarians  and  Moravians.  For 
centuries  however  the  Slavonic  has  ceased  to  be  a  language 
of  common  life,  and  is  read  only  in  the  public  worship  of  the 
church. 

The  translation  is  very  literal  and  faithful,  violating  the 
idiom  of  the  Slavonian  for  the  sake  of  retaining  the  Greek 
construction.  The  position  of  words,  and  constructions  follow 
the  Greek  text  closely ;  many  are  not  at  all  translated,  but 
adopted  as  they  are ;  and  many  Slavic  words  are  formed  soli- 
citously after  the  Greek. 

The  MSS.  used  in  making  the  version  contained  for  the 
most  part  what  is  called  the  Constantinopolitan  or  later  text. 
As  Constantine  and  Methodius  were  born  in  Thessalonica 
and  so  belonged  to  the  Constantinopolitan  patriarchate,  and 
were  even  sent  from  that  place,  they  must  have  taken  with 
them  Constantinopolitan  MSS. 

The  text  however  is  not  proper,  unmixed  Byzantine. 
There  are  in  it  many  old  readings  belonging  to  the  western 
class.  Hug  and  Eichhorn  agree  in  saying  that  the  recension 
exhibited  by  the  version  is  Constantinopolitan,  mixed  however 
with  what  they  term  Hesychian  readings,  or  according  to 
Hug's  notion,  with  readings  from  the  xoivn  'sxdoaig  and  from 
Egyptian  MSS.  Such  language  gives  a  false  impression  of 
the  case,  and  explains  nothing. 

It  is  still  matter  of  dispute,  whether  the  version  has  been 
interpolated  from  the  Latin.  There  are  appearances  favourable 
to  the  supposition.  It  is  countenanced  by  Latinising  readings. 
Dobrovsky  however  defends  it  from  this  charge.*  According 
to  him,  it  agrees  remarkably  with  D.  and  L.  Professor  Alter, 
who  carefully  collated  two  MSS.  in  the  Imperial  Library  at 
Vienna,  enables  us  to  see  that  the  prevailing  character  is  Con- 
stantinopolitan, and  that  its  agreement  with  such  authorities 
*  See  his  Slavanca,  second  part,  1815,  Prague. 


240  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

as  D.  L.  the  Vulgate,  is  not  so  great  as  to  be  pervading  or 
characteristic. 

On  comparing  it  with  the  Gothic,  it  has  been  found  that 
there  is  a  frequent  agreement  with  it  in  coincidence  either  with 
the  common  text  or  with  the  oldest.  Both  the  Slavonic  and 
Gothic  have  the  old  readings  in  Matt.  viii.  8;  Mark  i.  11  ; 
John  vi.  22,  39,  69;  Gal.  ii.  14,  iv.  17;  while  on  the  other 
hand  it  exhibits  the  same  kind  of.  readings  in  Mark  i.  34,  ii.  9  ; 
John  v.  40,  48  where  it  is  deserted  bj  the  Gothic.  Again,  it 
agrees  with  the  usual  received  text  in  opposition  to  the  Gothic, 
in  Matt.  vi.  18,  ix.  13,  35,  xi.  2 ;  Mark  i.  2,  5,  ii.  17, 18,  20 ; 
Romans  x.  1,  xiii.  9;  though  in  more  places  the  two  versions 
together  follow  the  Constantinopolitan  text.* 

The  first  edition  of  the  gospels  was  published  in  4to  in 
Wallachia  1512.  Afterwards  they  were  published  in  folio  at 
Wilna  1575 ;  and  again  at  Moscow  in  1614.  It  was  from 
this  last  that  Alter  collated  the  first  fourteen  chapters  of  John's 
gospel,  and  extracted  the  various  readings  in  his  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament.  The  whole  Bible  was  published  at  Ostrog 
in  Volhjnia  (Poland),  1581  folio,  from  which  was  taken  the 
Moscow  Bible,  1663  folio.  It  was  the  latter  which  was  used 
by  Dobrovsky  in  collating  the  version  for  Griesbach  ;  but  he 
had  besides  several  MSS.  of  the  Slavonic  text.  There  are 
many  more  recent  editions.  Von  Muralt  recently  collated  two 
MSS.  of  the  eleventh  century — one  that  had  been  published 
in  fac-simile  by  Silvestrius,  containing  the  gospels;  another 
belonging  to  St.  Petersburg,  containing  the  Acts  and  epistles. 

The  comparatively  late  date  of  this  version  prevents  it 
from  assuming  the  importance  it  might  otherwise  claim.  It 
need  not  have  been  brought  into  the  field  of  criticism  at  all. 
It  may  be  dispensed  with.  We  should  therefore  neglect  it  in 
future  as  a  source  of  various  readings.  Besides  its  recent  date, 
the  suspicion  of  Latinising  has  not  been  wiped  away  from  the 
printed  editions  of  it  at  least. 

*  See  De  Wette,  Einleit.  p.  30. 


CHAPTER    XVIIl. 


THE    LATIN   VERSION. 

It  lias  been  disputed  whether  at  a  very  early  period  there  were 
several  Latin  versions  of  the  Scriptures,  or  only  one.  The 
prevailing  opinion  has  always  been  in  favour  of  the  former ; 
those  who  take  that  view  relying  much  on  the  words  of 
Augustine  and  Jerome.  And  if  the  expressions  of  these 
fathers  be  rigidly  interpreted  according  to  the  letter,  they 
look  as  if  they  justified  the  opinion  in  question.  Augustine  in 
his  treatise  of  Christian  doctrine  refers  apparently  to  the  multi- 
tude of  Latin  translations  then  current ;  but  in  a  way  to  put 
his  readers  on  their  guard  against  the  majority  of  them  as 
having  been  made  by  persons  not  sufficiently  qualified  for  the 
undertaking.*  In  like  manner  Jerome  states  that  there  were 
almost  as  many  diiferent  texts  as  manuscripts,  f 

But  whatever  may  be  said  of  the  sense  a'p'parently  intended 

*  "  Qui  scripturas  ex  Hebraea  lingua  ia Graecam  verterunt  numeiari 
possunt,  Latini  autem  interpretes  nullo  modo.  Ut  enim  cuique  primis 
fidei  temporibus  in  manu3  venit  codex  Graecus,  et  aliquantulum  facul- 
tatis  sibi  utriusque  linguae  habere  videbatur,  ausvis  est  interpretari." — De 
Doctr.  Christ,  lib.  ii.  cap.  11. 

f  "  Si  Latinis  exemplaribus  fides  est  adhibenda,  respondeant  quibus  ? 
tot  enim  sunt  exemplaria  paene  qviot  codices." — Praefat.  in  iv.  Evangelia 
ad  Damas. 

VOL.    II.  R 


242  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

by  both  writers,  repeated  reflection  will  serve  to  convince  the 
scholar  that  they  did  not  really  mean  to  say  that  there  was  a 
very  large  number  of  distinct  Latin  translations  in  current  use 
in  their  day.  When  they  speak  of  the  great  discrepancy  of 
Latin  MSS.  with  one  another  they  can  hardly  intend  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that  there  were  very  many  authors  of  different 
versions  in  tlie  Latin  language.  There  was  one  translation — 
substantially  and  essentially  one — the  same  which  had  been 
used  long  before  the  days  of  Augustine  or  Jerome.  Originally 
that  may  have  appeared  in  parts  in  difterent  years  (though 
with  no  great  interval  of  time),  but  it  was  still  but  one  version. 
It  is  likely  that  it  first  appeared  in  Africa  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, for  even  Tertullian  made  use  of  it  so  early  as  A.D.  190, 
unless  indeed  we  suppose  that  the  scripture  texts  found  in  his 
writings  were  rendered  by  himself  from  the  Greek,  which  is  very 
improbable.  The  text  of  this  primitive  version  soon  became 
deteriorated.  Many  persons  meddled  with  it.  It  was  altered, 
renovated,  and  patched  by  one  and  another  in  various  places. 
It  was  interpolated  from  various  sources.  Hence  it  began 
rapidly  to  lose  its  individuality  of  character.  Marginal  sug- 
gestions were  taken  into  it,  parallel  passages  were  incorporated, 
Greek  MSS.  furnished  new  readings  for  it  which  took  the 
place  of  older  ones.  It  appeared  as  «/ separate  versions  had  all 
been  mixed  and  mutually  interpolated.  It  was  not  however 
by  the  mixing  together  of  separate  texts  that  this  deterioration 
Avas  effected,  but  rather  by  the  petty  mending  of  one  Latin 
translation.  To  such  a  state  of  things  the  words  of  Augustine 
and  Jerome  refer,  and  not  to  independent  versions — to  a 
strange  and  pernicious  license  which  early  prevailed  in  alter- 
ing and  interpolating  the  Latin  text. 

In  affixing  this  meaning  to  the  words  of  Augustine  and 
Jerome  we  believe  that  they  are  rightly  interpreted,  as  Blanchini* 

*  Evangeliarium  Quadruplex  Latinae  versionis  antiquae  seu  veteris 
Italicae,  &c.  vol.  i.  Prolegomena,  p.  78,  et  seq. 


THE    LATIN    VERSION.  243 

and  Sabatier*  long  since  saw.  Nor  has  the  proper  view 
escaped  the  sagacity  of  Eichhorn,  Wiseman  f,  and  Lachmann,:|: 
in  modern  times.  In  this  case  too  Tischendorf  §  has  wisely 
followed  Lachmann. 

But  does  not  Augustine  speak  in  terms  of  commendation 
of  one  among  the  old  Latin  versions  ?  Does  he  not  specify 
the  Itala?^  He  certainly  preferred  it  to  others,  but  it  was 
not  on  that  account  a  distinct  version.  It  was  a  recension  or 
revised  edition  of  the  versio  vetus.  That  form  of  the  old  Latin 
which  he  called  Itala  or  the  Italic  [recension]  had  been  re- 
vised after  Greek  MSS.  When  the  old  Latin  was  received  by 
the  Italians,  or  more  correctly  a  certain  part  of  them,  from 
Africa,  it  was  carefully  attended  to,  and  improved  after  Greek 
copies. 

This  sense  of  the  expression  Itala  has  been  abundantly 
proved  by  Wiseman,  whose  argument  is  repeated  by  Lach- 
mann. The  same  Augustine  in  liis  treatise  against  Faustus 
repeats  the  same  precept  three  times,  saying  first,  that  one 
should  have  recourse  to  the  exempla  veriora ;  then  that  the 
origin,  origo^  of  the  book  published  by  the  African  heretic 
should  be  looked  to;  and  lastly,  that  the  doubt  should  be 
solved  "  ex  aliarum  regionum  codicibus  unde  ipsa  doctrina 
commeaverit,"  /.  e.  by  the  copies  of  other  regions  whence 
the  doctrine  itself  emanated.  Hence  Augustine  must  have 
used  Italian  copies,  or  copies  conformed,  to  the  Italian^  espe- 

*  Bibliorum  Sacrorum  Latinae  versiones  antiquae,  &c.  &c.  vol.  i. 
praefat. 

t  Two  letters  on  some  parts  of  the  controversy  concerning  1  John 
V.  7  ;  containing  also  an  inquiry  into  the  origin  of  the  first  Latin  version 
of  Scripture,  commonly  called  the  Itala. 

+  Novum  Testamentum  Graece  et  Latine,  Tom.  i.  praefat.  p.  x.  et  seq. 

§  Evangelium  Palatinum  ineditum,  Prolegomena,  §  7,  p.  xvi.  et  seq. 

II  "  In  Ipsis  autem  (Latinis)  interpretationibus  Itala  caeteris  prae- 
feratur  :  nam  est  verborum  tenacior  cum  perspicuitate  sententiae." — De 
Doctr.  Christ.  Lib.  ii.  cap.  xvi. 


244  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

cially  as   he   says   elsewhere  that  unrevised  should  yield  to 
revised  copies. 

A  good  deal  of  misapprehension  has  existed  in  regard  to 
the  sense  of  Itala  or  the  Italic  revision.  It  does  not  mean  one 
particular  Latin  version  from  among  many  other  distinct  ones 
of  the  same  kind  and  in  the  same  language.  Neither  does  it 
apply  to  the  whole  mass  of  Latin  biblical  text  prior  to  the 
time  of  Jerome.  The  old  Latin  version  which  was  made  in 
northern  Africa  in  the  second  century  should  not  be  called  the 
Itala  or  Italic  version.  Augustine's  use  of  it  is  more  restricted, 
for  he  applies  it  to  a  certain  revision  of  the  versio  vetus  or  old 
Latin — that  revision  which  circulated  in  northern  Italy — the 
Italian  province  of  which  Milan  was  the  metropolis.  To  this 
form  of  the  text  the  African  fatlier  applies  the  character,  "  est 
verhorum  tenacior  cum  perspicuitate  sententiae.^^  The  Italic 
revision  was  distinguished  for  the  closeness  of  its  renderings  and 
the  perspicuity/  of  its  style.  As  the  version  circulated  in  its  native 
country,  northern  Africa,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  it  pos- 
sessed a  certain  rude  simplicity.  It  was  literal  and  bold  in  style, 
passing  into  grammatical  inaccuracy  in  numerous  instances.  It 
was  barbarous  enough  at  first ;  it  had  contracted  worse  features 
afterwards.     Its  text  had  been  disfigured  and  corrupted. 

The  works  of  Blanchini  and  Sabatier  have  done  much 
towards  making  us  acquainted  with  the  MSS.  of  the  old  Latin. 
Some  of  Tischendorf's  publications  have  also  contributed  to 
the  same  object.  A  good  many  of  the  codices  have  thus  been 
collated  or  published,  the  most  important  of  which  are  the 
following : — 

IN  THE  GOSPELS. 

Codex  Vercellensis  (cod.  Verc.  a  of  Lachmann  and  Tis- 
chendorf).  This  ancient  codex  belongs  to  the  fourth  century, 
and  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  by  the  hand  of  Eusebius 
of  Vercelli.     It  has  now  many  chasms.     The  text  was  first 


^THE    LATIN   VERSIOX.  245 

printed  by  J.  A.  Irico  at  Milan  in  1749,  4to,  and  was  subse- 
quently incorporated  by  Blancliini  into  Evangeliarum  Quad- 
ruplex,  where  it  occupies  the  left-hand  page.  There  is  a  de- 
scription of  the  MS.  in  that  work,  and  a  fac-simile  specimen. 

Cod.  Veronensts  (cod.  Ver.  b  of  Lachmann  and  Tischen- 
dorf).  This  codex  belongs  to  the  fourth  or  fifth  century.  It 
has  a  great  number  of  chasms.  The  text  was  published  by 
Blancliini  in  the  work  already  mentioned  where  it  occupies  the 
right-hand  page.  The  MS.  is  also  described  there,  and  a  fac- 
simile specimen  given. 

Cod.  Pcdatinus  Vindohonensis  {e  of  Tischendorf).  This 
MS.  contains  the  gospels  of  John  and  Luke  nearly  entire. 
Almost  the  half  of  Matthew  is  wanting.  Nearly  six  chapters 
of  Mark  remain.  It  is  supposed  to  belong  to  the  fourth  or 
fifth  century ;  and  the  text  was  published  by  Tischendorf  in 
1847  in  his  "Evangelium  Palatinum  ineditum." 

Cod.  Brixianus  {foi  Tischendorf).  This  codex  belongs  to 
the  sixth  century.  It  is  described  in  the  work  of  Blanchini, 
where  its  text  is  published  below  that  of  the  cod.  Ver.  or  h. 

Codices  C&rbejenses  {ff^  and  ff'^  of  Tischendorf).  Two  of 
these  which  are  very  ancient  have  been  used,  by  the  aid  of  the 
publications  of  Martianay,  Blanchini,  and  Sabatier. 

Codices  Sangermanenses  [g^  and  g'  of  Tischendorf).  Two 
of  these  which  are  also  very  old  have  been  employed  for  critical 
purposes.  The  readings  of  the  first  were  given  as  regards 
Matthew's  gospel  by  Martianay  and  Blanchini ;  of  the  second 
as  well  as  the  first  in  relation  to  the  four  gospels  by  Sabatier. 

Cod.  Claromontanus  {h  of  Tischendorf).  This  MS.  is  now 
in  the  Vatican  Library  and  is  doubtless  of  a  very  great  age. 
It  contains  the  gospel  according  to  Matthew,  with  several 
chasms.  Sabatier  gave  excerpts  from  it,  and  Angelo  Mai 
afterwards  published  its  text  in  the  third  volume  of  liis  "  Scrip- 
tor.  Veterum  nova  collectio." 

Cod.  Vindohonensis  {i  of  Tischendorf).      This  MS.  which 


246  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

lias  been  assigned  to  the  fifth  century  contains  fragments  of 
the  gospels  by  Luke  and  Mark.  The  text  was  published 
entire  by  Alter  and  Paulus. 

Cod.  Bohhiensis  [k  of  Tischendorf ) .  This  MS.  is  now  at 
Turin,  and  belongs  to  the  fifth  century.  It  contains  fragments 
of  the  gospels  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  text  was  best 
published  by  Tischendorf  in  1847  in  the  Wiener  Jahrbiicher. 

Cod.  Cantahrigiensis  {d  of  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf). 
This  is  a  Greek-Latin  MS.  of  the  gospels,  Acts,  and  third 
epistle  of  John,  supposed  to  belong  to  the  sixth  century.  The 
Latin  is  mutilated  in  some  parts,  and  some  lessons  are  by  a 
more  recent  hand.  A  splendid  fac-simile  of  the  text  was  pub- 
lished by  Kipling. 

Cod.  Rhedigerianus  (l  of  Tischendorf).  This  MS.  contains 
the  four  gospels,  with  a  considerable  deficiency  in  that  of  John. 
It  has  been  assigned  to  the  seventh  century.  Schulz  first 
collated,  described,  and  applied  it  to  the  criticism  of  the  text, 
in  the  third  edition  of  Griesbach. 

Cod.  Colhertinus  (c  of  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf).  This 
MS.  belongs  to  the  eleventh  century.  Its  text  was  published 
by  Sabatier. 

IN  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

The  chief  MSS.  hitherto  used  have  been — 

The  Cod.  Cantahrigiensis  or  d  already  noticed. 

Cod.  Laudianus  [e  of  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf).  This 
is  a  Greek-Latin  MS.  in  the  Bodleian  Library.  It  is  assigned 
by  Tischendorf  to  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  and  the  text 
was  published  by  Hearne  at  Oxford  in  1715. 

Cod.  Bohhiensis  (k  of  Tischendorf).  Now  at  Vienna,  a  MS. 
assigned  to  the  fifth  century  by  Tischendorf.  It  contains  no 
more  than  a  few  fragments  of  the  Acts  discovered  in  a  rescript 
MS.  in  the  Impei-ial  Library  at  Vienna  and  edited  by  Tis- 
chendorf 


THE    LATIN    VERSION.  247 

IN  THE  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES. 

Cod.  Corhejensis  {ff^  of  Tischendorf).  A  MS.  already  re- 
ferred to  as  containing  Matthew's  gospel.  It  lias  also  the 
epistle  of  James.  The  text  was  edited  by  Martianay,  and 
afterwards  by  Sabatier. 

Cod.  Bohhiensis  (k).  This  is  the  same  just  referred  to  as 
containing  fragments  of  the  Acts.  It  contains  besides  a  few 
fragments  of  James's  epistle  and  the  first  of  Peter. 

IN  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

Cod.  Claromontanus  (f  of  Lachmann ;  d  of  Tischendorf). 
An  important  MS.  attributed  by  Tischendorf  to  the  end  of  the 
sixth  century.  It  contains  the  Greek  text,  as  well  as  the 
Latin  version.  Tischendorf  has  published  the  whole  MS. 
very  accurately. 

Cod.  Sangermanensis  [ff  of  Lachmann  ;  e  of  Tischendorf), 
now  at  Petersburgh.  This  is  a  Greek-Latin  MS.  The  text 
was  published  by  Sabatier. 

Cod.  Boernerianus  [g  of  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf),  now 
in  Dresden.  It  is  a  Greek-Latin  MS.  supposed  to  belong  to 
the  ninth  century.  The  whole  was  published  by  Matthaei,  at 
Meissen,  a.d.  1791. 

Cod.  Ouelpherhytanus  (Guelph.)  containing  a  few  fragments 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  appended  to  the  text  of  the 
Gothic  version,  published  from  the  rescript  leaves  by  Knittel. 

Griesbach  in  his  second  edition  quoted  readings  from 
twenty-five  MSS.  of  the  versio  vetus ;  but  seven  of  them,  as 
he  himself  states,  are  rather  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  or  Jerome's 
revision.  This  leaves  eighteen.  Two  additional  ones  were 
cited  by  Schulz  in  the  third  edition  of  Griesbach's  first  volume  ; 
to  which  Scliolz  added  three  apparently^  but  only  two  in  reality, 
because  one  of  his  three  belongs  to    the   Vulgate,   not   the 


248  BIBLICAL   CKITICISM. 

vetus.  Tischendorf  used  several  other  important  ones  which 
were  either  unknown  or  unexamined  before,  so  that  the  list  has 
been  considerably  enlarged  since  Griesbach's  time,  and  may 
without  doubt  be  greatly  increased  hereafter ;  for  it  is  known 
that  many  codices  of  the  old  Latin  exist  in  European  libraries 
— codices  that  have  not  been  sought  out  and  brought  forth 
from  their  hiding  places. 

It  is  of  more  importance  however  to  classify  than  simply  to 
enumerate  the  Latin  MSS. ,  for  they  are  clearly  capable  of  classi- 
fication according  to  the  form  of  text  they  exhibit. 

1.  The  old  Latin  or  versio  vetus  as  found  in  codices  Ver- 
cellensis,  Veronensis,  and  Colbertinus.  These  represent  the 
unrevised  version  in  the  oldest  state  it  can  be  obtained  in. 

2.  The  Italic  revision  of  the  Latin,  to  which  alone  Augus- 
tine refers.     This  is  found  in  the  codex  Brixianus. 

[3.  Jerome's  revision,  which  Avas  probably  in  part  a  new 
version.     To  this  we  shall  refer  hereafter.] 

4.  A  revision  in  which  the  Greek  MSS.  that  resemble  B. 
C.  L.  were  followed.  This  is  found  in  the  fragments  of  codex 
Bobbiensis,  not  as  published  by  Fleck,  for  he  has  given  the 
readings  most  inaccurately,  but  as  published  in  the  Wiener 
Jahrbiicher  by  Tischendorf. 

There  are  also  MSS.  containing  a  mixed  text,  which  is  com- 
monly a  modification  of  the  text  found  in  cod.  Brixianus,  such 
as  the  codex  Boernerianus.  There  are  also  MSS.  of  Jerome's 
revision  in  which  older  readings  and  additions  are  found  as 
cod.  Emmerami.  Tiiese  are  the  result  of  the  existence  of  the 
various  classes. 

It  was  after  the  first  class  that  Lachmann  so  eagerly  sought, 
that  he  might  shew  the  version  in  its  original  African  state  as 
correctly  as  possible.  But  he  was  only  able  to  obtain  a  few 
ancient  copies  of  this  kind.  The  second  class  or  Itala  was 
conformed  to  the  Greek  MSS.  then  becoming  current,  such  as 
the  Gothic  commonly  agrees  with,  or  the  Constantinopolitan 


THE   LATIN   VERSION.  249 

family  of  Griesbacli.  The  third  or  Jerome's  revision  follows, 
as  we  learn  from  himself,  the  same  kind  of  MSS.  as  the 
versio  vetus  was  at  first  made  from,  that  is,  the  western  recen- 
sion of  Griesbach.  As  to  the  form  of  the  versio  vetus  in  the 
copies  of  it  current  at  Rome  when  Jerome  undertook  his  revi- 
sion, it  is  best  seen  in  the  commentaries  of  Victorinus  bishop 
of  Rome  in  the  fourth  century.  The  fourth  class  is  conformed 
to  the  Alexandrine  MSS.  of  Griesbach,  or  such  as  were  used 
for  the  Memphitic  version. 

JEROME'S  EEVISION  OR  THE  VULGATE. 

To  remedy  the  confusion  which  had  been  introduced  into 
the  text  of  the  old  Latin,  Jerome  was  requested  by  Damasus 
bishop  of  Rome  to  revise  it  after  the  Greek  original.  Tlie 
task  was  not  undertaken  without  serious  misgivings,  because 
he  foresaw  that  all  the  moderation  and  caution  which  he  might 
employ  would  not  suffice  to  prevent  odium.  Accordingly  he 
did  not  deem  it  necessary  or  wise  to  depart  very  far  from  the 
prevailing  text  of  the  Latin  translation.  Agreeably  to  his  own 
statement  he  took  for  the  basis  of  his  revision  the  most  esteemed 
copies  of  the  time — those  of  Origen,  Pierius,  Eusebius — which 
came  nearer  the  Latin  text  than  others,  and  followed  them 
only  where  he  found  the  Latin  manifestly  erroneous.  Hence 
he  allowed  everything  to  remain  which  he  could  not  directly 
pronounce  to  be  false,  though  he  might  have  been  able  to  put 
a  better  in  place  of  it.  He  refrained  from  making  much  inno- 
vation. As  many  changes  as  he  thought  desirable  and  would 
have  preferred,  were  not  made.  He  did  not  follow  out  his  own 
convictions  and  preferences  in  the  task  of  revision.*     Hence 

*  "  Novum  opus  me  facere  cogis  ex  Veteri  ut  post  exemplaria  scrip- 
turarum  toto  orhe  dispersa,  quasi  quidem  arbiter  sedeam,  et  quia  iuter  se 
variant,  quae  sunt  ilia  quae  cum  Graecis  conseutiant  veritate  decernam. 
Pius  labor  sed  periculosa  praesumptio  judicare  de  caeteris  ipsum  ab 
omnibus  judicandum  ;  senis  mutare  linguam  et  canescentem  jam  mundum 


250  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

his  commentaries  exhibit  departures  from  the  version  as  he  him- 
self improved  it.  In  them  we  may  perceive  his  best  judgment 
relative  to  the  readings  of  the  Latin  text. 

Take  the  following  as  a  specimen  of  the  changes  he 
made : — 

Old  Latin.  Jerovie's  revision. 

Matt.  vi.  11.  Panem  quotidianum.  Pauem  supersubstantialem. 

vii.  12.  Ut  faciaut  vobis  ho-  XTt  faciant  vobis  homines, 
mines  bona. 

Matt.xxi.31.  Et  dicunt  ei  :  novis-  Et  dicunt  ei  :  primus, 
simus.* 
xxiv.  36.  Nee  filivis.  (Omitted). 

Matt.  xi.    2.  Discipulos  suos.  Duos  de  discipulis  suis. 
V.  22.  Sine  causa.  (Omitted). 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  from  the  preface  to  the  four 
gospels  addressed  to  Damasus,  as  might  perhaps  be  inferred 
from  itself,  that  the  revision  of  Jerome  extended  to  the  gospels 
alone. t     He  merely  began  with  them.     The  other  parts  fol- 

ad  initia  retrahere  parvulorum  ;  quis  enim  doctus  pariter  et  indoctus, 
cum  in  manus  volumen  assumserit  et  a  saliva,  quam  semel  imbibit  viderit 
discrepare,  quod  lectitat  non  statim  erumpat  in  vocem  me  falsarium,  me 
clamitans  esse  sacrilegum,  qui  audeam  aliquid  in  veteribus  libris  addere, 
mutare,  corrigere,"  &c. — Praef.  in  iv.  Evang.  ad  Damasum. 

"  Codicum  Graecorum  emendata  collatione,  sed  et  veterum,  nee  quae 
multum  a  lectionis  Latinae  cousuetudine  discreparent,  ita  calamo  tem- 
peravimus,  ut  his  tantum,  quae  sensum  videbantur  mutare,  correctis, 
reliqua  manere  pateremur,  ut  fuerunt." — Ibid. 

"  Praetermitto  eos  codices  quos  a  Luciano  et  Hesychio  nuncupates 
paucorum  hominum  asserit  perversa  contentio,  quibus  utique  nee  in  toto 
veteri  instrumento  post  lxx.  interpretes  emendare  quid  licuit,  nee  in  novo 
prof'uit  emendasse." — Ibid. 

*  Here  Sabatier  has  primus.  But  we  believe  that  the  other  is  the 
true  reading,  since  it  is  found  in  the  codices  Vercellensis,  Veronensis 
Corbejensis,  San-germanensis  and  other  ancient  MSS.  But  the  cod. 
Brixianus  has  ■primus. — See  Blanchini's  Evangel.  Quadruplex. 

f  "  Igitur  haec  praesens  praefatiuncula  pollicetur  quatuor  Evangelia 

codicum  Graecorum  emendata  collatione,  sed  veterum,  nee  qui 

multum  a  lectionis  Latinae  consuetudinc  discreparent." — Praef.  ad 
Dam  as. 


THE    LATIN   VERSION.  251 

lowed.  Elsewhere  he  speaks  expressly  of  the  whole  New  Tes- 
tament as  having  been  corrected;*  and  complains  of  those 
who  in  the  Pauline  epistles  preferred  the  old  vicious  Latin 
translation  to  his  new  and  revised  text.f 

The  four  gospels  were  completed  and  published  in  the  year 
384.  After  this  part  was  finished,  he  proceeded  to  the  remain- 
ing books,  in  which  he  followed  the  same  method  as  in  the 
gospels,  correcting  here  and  there  from  the  Greek,  but  leaving 
most  part  of  the  text  untouched.  The  multiplicity  of  his  en- 
gagements at  Rome  during  the  three  years  or  more  he  spent 
there  at  this  time  382-386,  proves  that  he  could  not  have  de- 
voted much  time  to  the  revision  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
latter  part  of  the  work  we  know  to  have  been  completed  before 
he  left  the  city ;  for  this  is  evident  from  the  epistle  to  Marcella 
(102)  written  in  385  or  the  commencement  of  386,  in  which 
he  strongly  inveighs  against  the  hiped  asses,  as  he  calls  them, 
(bipedes  aselli),  who  blamed  him  for  his  emendations  in  the 
gospels  and  preferred  the  old  Latin. 

A  few  examples  of  his  recension  in  the  remainder  of  the 
New  Testament  may  be  given  — 

Old  Latin.  Jerome's  revision- 
Acts  xiii.  18.  Kutrivit  eos.  Mores  eorum  sustinuit. 

XV.  29.  Observantesvosipsos,  Custodientes  vos,  bene  agetis. 
bene  agetis. 
Gal.  V.  7.  Quis  vos  impedivit  veri- 

tati  non  obedire  1     Ne-  (Nemini  consenseritis  is  omitted), 
mini  consenseritis. 

Eph.  i.    9,  Placitum.  Bonum  placitum. 

i.  11.  Vocati  sumus.  Sorte  vocati  sumus. 

i.  14.  Adoptionis.  Adquisitionis. 

19.  Vobis  qui  credidistis.  Nos  qui  credidimus. 

1  Tim.  i.  15.  Humanus  sermo.  Fidelis  sermo. 

iii.  2.  Docibilem.  Doctorem. 


*  "Novum  Testamentum  Graecae  fidei  reddidi." — Catal.  scriptt.  eccles, 
t  Epist.  ad  Marcellam,  102,  or  as  it  is  now,  xxvii. 


252  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Old  Latin.  Jerome's  revision. 

1  Tim.  V.  19.  Adversuspresbyterum  Nisi  sub  duobus,  et  tribus  testibus 
accusationem  ne  re-  (added), 

ceperis. 

Eph.  iv.  14.  Remedium.  Circumventionem. 

vi.  11.  Remedium  diaboli.  Insidias  diaboli.* 

What  Jerome  was  afraid  of  actually  came  to  pass. 
Neither  the  name  of  Damasus  nor  the  obvious  want  of  such  a 
revision  contributed  to  introduce  the  amended  text  into  the 
western  church  generally  in  the  century  it  appeared  in.  Au- 
gustine himself  showed  a  disinclination  to  welcome  it ;  and  in 
Rome  both  the  old  Latin  and  the  improved  text  were  em- 
ployed together  for  a  long  time.  But  the  reputation  of  the 
latter  grew  with  time.  Its  value  was  gradually  recognised, 
till  at  last  it  came  to  be  universally  adopted.  After  this  time, 
by  way  of  distinguishing  the  amended  from  the  older  text, 
the  name  versio  vulgata  or  communis  was  attributed  to  the  for- 
mer. When  therefore  we  now  speak  of  the  Vulgate  in  relation 
to  the  New  Testament,  we  mean  Jerome's  revised  edition  of 
the  ancient  Latin  version  used  by  the  Latin  fathers — the  text 
of  the  latter  corrected  by  the  aid  of  ancient  Greek  MSS.  A 
writer  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  biography, 
says  both  erroneously  and  unintelligibly,  "  The  New  Testa- 
ment is  a  translation  formed  out  of  the  old  translations  care- 
fully compared  and  corrected  from  the  original  Greek  of 
Jerome."  f 

The  version  has  not  remained  in  the  state  in  which  it  came 
from  the  hand  of  Jerome.  Besides  the  changes  which  are  un- 
avoidable in  the  course  of  transcription  for  centuries,  an  early 
intermixture  of  the  two  texts  took  place.  Cassiodorus  com- 
pared again  (after  A.D.  550)  the  older  text  with  that  of  Jerome, 
placing  both  in  parallel  columns.     We  are  informed  by  Blan- 

*  See  Mill's  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  §  863,  et  seq.  wbere  however  there 
are  many  errors.  t  Vol.  ii.  p.  466. 


THE   LATIN   VERSION.  253 

cliini,*  that  there  is  a  ]\IS.  in  the  Vatican  (No.  7016)  in 
which  the  Vulgate  of  Jerome  has  been  industriously  mixed 
with  the  old  Latin  version. 

We  have  abeady  spoken  of  critical  revisions  of  the  Vul- 
gate by  Alcuin,  Lanfranc,  Cardinal  Nicolaus,  and  the  so- 
called  Correctoria.  The  description  given  applies  alike  to 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  parts  of  the  Vulgate.  The 
chief  editions  have  also  been  noticed  and  described,  and  all 
proceedings  of  interest  or  importance  relating  to  the  entire 
version. 

Before  leaving  the  Vulgate  we  may  allude  to  a  circum- 
stance which  has  not  been  sufficiently  perceived  or  attended 
to  in  connection  with  its  histoiy  and  character.  In  a.d.  386 
or  387,  above  a  year  after  Jerome  had  gone  over  all  the  New 
Testament,  appeared  his  commentaries  on  the  epistles  to  the 
Galatians,  Ephesians,  Titus,  Philemon,  in  which  he  reviewed 
and  amended  in  different  places  what  he  had  previously  left 
untouched.  And  because  it  was  seen  that  these  emendations 
differed  considerably  from  the  text  of  the  Vulgate,  some 
thought  that  the  Latin  version  we  now  have  and  call  the  Vul- 
gate is  not  that  which  was  either  edited  or  amended  by 
Jerome.f  But  this  is  incorrect.  Had  Jerome  undertaken  a 
thorough  correction  of  the  old  Latin  translation,  the  view  pro- 
posed would  have  been  plausible ;  but  such  was  not  the  fact. 
In  revising  the  latter  part  of  the  New  Testament,  he  followed 
the  same  rule  as  he  had  done  in  the  case  of  the  gospels.  He 
merely  removed  the  most  palpable  mistakes,  those  which 
seemed  to  alter  the  sense,  leaving  others  as  they  were.  Not  a 
few  were  allowed  to  remain,  lest  offence  should  be  given.  But 
after  Jerome  had  published  his  edition  of  the  old  Latin,  it  was 

*  Evangeliarum  Quadruples,  vol.  ii.  pars  2.  post  dciv.  cod.  xxxiv. 
"  Versio  est  ex  Itala  atque  ex  Hieronymiana  versione  mixta." 
t  Estius  Comment,  in  ep.  ad  Ephes.  i.  10. 


254  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

still  in  his  power  to  note  and  correct  such  faults  as  had  oc- 
curred to  him  perhaps  from  repeated  perusals  of  the  Latin 
text;  and  he  did  this  in  the  commentaries  on  the  epistles 
already  mentioned,  as  well  as  in  his  commentary  on  Matthew, 
published  in  a.d.  398  * 

These  remarks  will  shew  that  the  Latin  text,  as  it  pro- 
ceeded from  Jerome's  hands  at  first,  and  as  it  was  afterwards 
explained  and  commented  on,  is  not  always  the  same.  The 
one  shews  what  he  thought  it  prudent  to  do  with  it  under  the 
circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed  at  Rome,  and  while 
Damasus  lived.  The  other  shews  his  later  and  better  ideas 
respecting  the  readings  of  it.  Still  however,  in  endeavouring 
to  restore  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  to  its  original  state  as  it 
came  from  the  hands  of  Jerome  himself,  we  should  not  put 
into  the  text,  by  the  aid  of  his  commentaries,  what  he  himself 
did  not  actually  put  or  leave  in  it.  Where  he  repeats  and  ex- 
plains in  his  commentaries  the  same  readings  as  those  occur- 
ring in  the  text  itself  just  as  he  revised  it,  we  have  ample 
ground  for  believing  that  the  genuine  readings  are  before  us  ; 
but  where  he  changes  a  word  or  words  in  his  annotations,  de- 
parting from  his  former  sentiments,  or  expressing  perhaps  what 
he  did  not  before  act  upon,  we  must  not  put  these  ncAv  read- 
ings into  the  text.  Jerome  himself  did  not  so  place  them. 
They  ought  to  stand  beside  the  text,  as  various  readings  ex- 
hibiting the  reviser's  maturest  ideas  of  the  emendation  re- 
quired. 

The  Vulgate,  as  it  is  now  called,  containing  Jerome's 
Latin  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  his  revision  of  the 
old  Latin  text  in  the  New  Testament,  is  best  represented  in 
its  original  condition  just  as  he  left  it,  in  the  codex  Amiatinus, 
as  far  as  it  can  be  represented  by  one  MS.  No  one  probably 
exhibits  it  so  well  as  it  is  there  printed.  This  is  the  most 
*  See  Mill's  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  §  867. 


THE    LATIN    VERSION.  255 

valuable  one  yet  known,  wliose  text  has  been  printed  by  Tis- 
chendorf.  It  is  also  well  given  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh 
volumes  of  Vallarsi's  edition  of  Jerome's  works.* 

But  this  Hieronymian  revision  is  of  so  great  importance 
that  we  must  not  dismiss  it  without  giving  some  account  of 
the  chief  manuscript  copies  of  it  that  are  known.  We  attach 
very  high  value  to  it,  and  therefore  regard  its  best  codices  as 
worthy  of  notice.  Every  thing  that  contributes  to  elicit  its 
primitive  readings  should  be  carefully  noticed.  In  doing  this 
we  are  supplying  the  class  of  Latin  MSS.  already  described 
as  No.  3. 

There  are  many  ancient  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  which  have 
been  applied  to  the  criticism  of  the  text.  It  is  necessary  to  do 
so  not  only  because  the  printed  editions  are  so  defective  and 
imperfect  representatives  of  the  text  which  Jerome  revised, 
but  because  ancient  MS.  copies  of  it  are  so  abundant.  Nothing- 
is  more  certain  than  that  both  the  papal  editions  of  Sixtus  and 
Clement  VIII.  differ  from  the  true  Hieronymian  text,  as  is 
proved  by  very  ancient  MSS.  Hence  it  is  equally  desirable 
and  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the  latter.  Indeed  the 
printed  editions  of  the  Vulgate  are  of  little  use  for  critical 
purposes. 

God.  Amiatinus  (L.  of  Lachmann  ;  am.  Tischendorf.)  This 
MS.  is  now  in  the  Laurentian  library  at  Florence,  and  was 
written  about  the  year  541.  A  collation  of  it  was  published 
by  F.  F.  Fleck  in  1840.  Afterwards  it  was  more  accurately 
examined  by  Tischendorf,  and  excerpts  made  from  it  which 
are  quoted  in  his  second  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament. 
Since  then  he  has  published  the  entire  text.  It  contains  both 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

Cod.  Fuldensis  (F.  of  Lachmann  ]fuld.  Tischendorf.)  This 
also  appears  to  belong  to  the  sixth  century.  It  was  used  by 
Lachmann  and  Buttmann  in  their  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
*  See  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  in  das  neue  Testament,  vol.  iv.  p.  376,  et  seq. 


250  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

ment  and  of  the  Hieronymian  version,  and  contains  all  the 
New  Testament,  except  that  it  has  the  four  gospels  in  a  har- 
mony divided  into  canons  and  numbers.  The  best  description 
of  the  MS.  is  that  given  long  ago  by  Schannat. 

Cod.  Toletanus  [tol.)  This  codex  is  at  Toledo,  as  the  name 
implies,  and  is  written  in  Gothic  letters.  A  collation  of  it  was 
published  by  Blanchini.  It  contains  both  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments. 

Other  MSS.  containing  parts  of  the  Vulgate  or  Jerome's 
revised  text  have  been  used  in  the  critical  editions  of  Gries- 
bach,  Scholz,  and  Tischendorf,  such  as  the  cod.  Emmerami 
written  in  the  ninth  century  and  described  by  Sanftl ; 
Forqjuh'ensis  published  by  Blanchini ;  Fossatensis  in  the 
work  of  Sabatier;  S.  Gatiani  of  the  eighth  century,  in 
Sabatier  and  Blanchini ;  Harlejanus  of  the  seventh  century,  in 
Griesbach's  Symbolae  Criticae ;  Ingolstadiensis  of  the  seventh 
century,  in  Tischendorf's  second  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, &c.  &c.  all  relating  to  the  gospels ;  Demidoviamis  con- 
taining the  Old  and  New  Testaments  out  of  which  Matthaei 
published  the  text  of  the  Acts,  epistles,  and  Apocalypse,  &c.  &c. 
Luxoviensis  a  lectionary  described  and  collated  by  Mabillon 
and  Sabatier,  &c.  &c.  But  for  a  particular  account  of  these  we 
must  refer  to  the  works  of  Sabatier,  Blanchini,  Tischendorf, 
and  others  mentioned  in  the  Prolegomena  of  the  critical  edi- 
tions of  the  New  Testament  by  Griesbach,  Scholz,  and  Tis- 
chendorf. 

The  Latin  version  in  its  antehieronymian  as  well  its  hier- 
onymian form,  is  of  great  use  in  the  department  of  New  Testa- 
ment criticism.  Perhaps  none  other  surpasses  here.  We 
should  scarcely  prefer  the  old  Syriac.  It  points  out  the 
readings  of  Greek  MSS.  of  greater  antiquity  than  any  now 
existing.  The  more  ancient  the  Greek  MSS.  the  closer  is 
their  agreement  with  it.  Undoubtedly  the  true  Hieronymian 
revision  of  it  is  of  most  service  in  indicating  the  hest  readings. 


THE    LATIN    VERSION.  257 

But  all  the  forms  of  the  Latin  deserve  the  most  careful 
observation. 

Notwithstanding  the  very  great  importance  of  the  version 
before  us,  it  has  not  yet  been  used  as  much  and  as  efficiently 
as  it  ought.  Indeed  its  proper  value  has  only  hegun  to  be 
appreciated.  Bentley  long  ago  perceived  its  time  worth  ;  as  his 
"  proposals  for  a  new  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  and  Latin 
version"  amply  attest.  It  will  not  perhaps  be  amiss  to  cite  a 
passage  or  two  from  that  consummate  critic's  "  proposals." 

"The  author  of  this  edition,  observing  that  the  printed 
copies  of  the  New  Testament,  both  of  the  original  Greek  and 
Antient  Vulgar  Latin,  were  taken  from  MSS.  of  no  great 
antiquity,  such  as  the  first  editors  could  then  procure;  and 
that  now  by  God's  providence  there  are  MSS.  in  Europe, 
(accessible  though  with  great  charge)  above  a  thousand  years 
old  in  both  languages;  believes  he  may  do  good  service  to 
common  Christianity,  if  he  publishes  a  new  edition  of  the 
Greek  and  Latin,  not  according  to  the  recent  and  interpolated 
copies,  but  as  represented  in  the  most  antient  and  venerable 
MSS.  in  Greek  and  Koman  Capital  letters.  '  The  Author 
revolving  in  his  mind  some  passages  of  St.  Hierom ;  where  he 
declares,  that  (without  making  a  New  Version)  he  adjusted 
and  reform'd  the  whole  Latin  Vulgate  to  the  best  Greek  Ex- 
emplars, that  is,  to  those  of  the  famous  Origen ;  and  another 
passage,  where  he  says,  that  a  verbal  or  literal  interpretation 
out  of  Greek  into  Latin  is  not  necessary,  except  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  Uhi  ipse  verhorum  ordo  mysterium  est^  where  the 
very  order  of  the  words  is  a  mystery ;  took  thence  the  hint, 
that  if  the  oldest  copies  of  the  Original  Greek  and  Hierom's 
Latin  were  examined  and  compared  together,  perhaps  they 
would  be  still  found  to  agree  both  in  words  and  order  of  words. 
And  upon  making  the  Essay,  he  has  succeeded  in  his  con- 
jecture, beyond  his  expectation  or  even  his  hopes.' 

"  The  Author  believes  that  he  has  retriev'd  (except  in  very 
VOL.  II.  S 


258  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

few  places)  the  true  Exemplar  of  Origen,  which  was  the  stan- 
dard to  the  most  learned  of  the  fathers  at  the  time  of  the  council 
of  Nice  and  two  centuries  after.  And  he  is  sure  that  the 
Greek  and  Latin  MSS.  by  their  mutual  assistance,  do  so  settle 
the  original  text  to  the  smallest  nicety  ;  as  cannot  be  perform'd 
now  in  any  Classic  Author  whatever :  and  that  out  of  a 
labyrinth  of  thirty  thousand  various  readings,  that  croud  the 
pages  of  our  present  best  editions,  all  put  upon  equal  credit  to 
the  offence  of  many  good  persons ;  this  clue  so  leads  and  extri- 
cates us  that  there  will  scarce  be  two  hundred  out  of  so  many 
thousands  that  can  deserve  the  least  consideration." 

In  modern  times  Lachmann  was  the  first  who  elevated  the 
Latin  version  to  its  proper  place  and  authority  in  his  large  edi- 
tion of  the  Greek  Testament,  where  he  prints  Jerome's  revision 
along  with  the  original  Greek,  from  the  oldest  and  best  sources 
he  could  find.  In  this  respect  he  only  trod  in  the  steps  of  his 
master  Bentley.  The  edition  of  Lachmann  greatly  influenced 
Tischendorf  in  regard  to  the  Latin  translation ;  and  he  has 
accordingly  done  much  to  promote  our  knowledge  of  its  old 
MSS.  By  means  of  his  investigations,  it  might  be  more  cor- 
rectly edited  now  than  it  was  by  Lachmann.  Critical  editors 
Avill  still  find  the  field  far  from  exhausted.  It  deserves  to  be 
well  cultivated. 

GENEKAL  OBSERVATIONS  ON  VERSIONS. 

It  is  high  time  that  the  number  of  versions  applied  to  the 
textual  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  should  be  reduced. 
No  real  benefit  has  accrued  from  extending  the  range  of  inves- 
tigation in  this  quarter.  Rather  has  there  been  disadvantage  ; 
for  the  wideness  of  the  field  has  made  it  much  more  difficult 
to  be  satisfactorily  treated.  There  are  several  versions  which 
have  encumbered,  not  promoted  the  science.  We  should 
therefore  cut  them  off  altogether.     They  should  be  left  out  of 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS   ON    VERSIONS.  259 

account  in  future  researches.  The  Arabic  versions  of  the  New 
Testament  ought  to  be  neglected.  They  are  useless.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  Persian.  In  like  manner  the  Georgian 
is  worthless.  The  Armenian  though  ancient  has  yielded 
no  fruit.  It  has  now  no  ancient  MSS.  to  present  its  original 
form — a  most  important  consideration,  since  it  has  suffered 
extensive  interpolation  from  the  Latin.  The  Slavonic  is  too 
recent  to  be  of  much  use,  however  highly  extolled  and  defended 
it  has  been  by  Dobrowsky.  Doubtless  it  has  good  readings 
generally,  if  it  be  true,  as  has  been  affirmed,  that  three-fourths 
of  those  adopted  by  Griesbach  are  contained  in  it ;  but  the 
suspicion  is  still  strong  of  its  being  altered  from  the  Latin; 
and  the  good  readings  of  Griesbach  are  equally  found  in  older 
versions,  so  that  the  Slavonic  is  not  needed  for  them.  Sub- 
tracting these  versions  there  remain  the  Syriac,  Latin,  Egyp- 
tian, ^thiopic,  and  Gothic.  Confining  the  attention  to  these, 
let  critics  investigate  their  nature  and  collate  their  texts  most 
accurately. 

It  were  better  that  one  competent  scholar  should  take  up 
one  of  them,  and  work  at  it  for  years  till  he  were  satisfied  that 
he  had  done  as  much  for  its  elucidation  in  a  critical  view  as 
his  resources  allowed.  The  most  ancient  should  be  first  exa- 
mined. The  Latin  is  as  yet  imperfectly  known ;  and  here  one 
man  could  scarcely  traverse  the  wide  field,  unless  he  were 
placed  in  very  favourable  circumstances.  The  old  Syriac 
needs  to  be  re-edited  from  ancient  copies  which  we  know  to  be 
available.  The  same  holds  good  of  the  others  we  have  men- 
tioned. 

In  thus  rejecting  the  junior  versions,  with  which  critical 
editors  appear  only  to  have  embarrassed  their  editions,  we 
should  be  coming  back  towards  the  principle  proposed  to  him- 
self by  the  sagacious  Bentley : — "  To  confirm,"  says  he,  "  the 
lections  which  the  author  places  in  the  text,  he  makes  use  of 
the  old  versions,  Syriac,  Coptic,  Gothic,  and  ^thiopic,  and  of 


260  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

all  the  fathers,  Greeks  and  Latins,  within  the  first  five  cen- 
turies." 

We  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject  with  a  few  hints  and 
cautions.     We  can  scarcely  call  them  rules. 

1.  Those  versions  only  have  a  critical  use  in  restoring  the 
original,  which  were  made  directly  from  the  original  Greek. 
Such  as  were  derived  from  other  versions  shew  the  readings  of 
the  parent  not  of  the  original  texts. 

2.  The  critic  should  procure  the  text  of  the  version  he 
means  to  use  critically  edited  and  amended.  This  will  appear 
necessary  when  it  is  stated  that  evident  blunders  are  still  con- 
tained in  most  of  the  editions.  Thus  in  the  Peshito,  Luke 
ii.  10,  rui  Xaw,  (V>\s  mundo,  instead  of  (^^Q^  populo.  See  also 
iv.  19  ;  Romans  xi.  27  ;  Colos.  i.  29,  ii.  16  ;  2  Thes.  ii.  7  ;  2 
Peter  ii.  1,  17,  18.*  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  ^thiopic, 
the  Vulgate,  and  others,  as  has  been  shewn  by  Michaelis. 

3.  As  most  of  them  have  not  yet  been  edited  in  the 
manner  we  could  wish  to  see — as  they  have  not  been  always 
printed  from  the  best  and  most  ancient  sources,  good  and 
old  MSS.  should  be  employed  and  not  merely  printed  copies. 
This  however  is  beyond  the  reach  of  many. 

4.  He  who  employs  a  version  in  criticism  should  be  well 
acquainted  with  the  language  of  it. 

5.  After  procuring  a  version  in  the  most  correct  state  pos- 
sible, as  near  as  it  can  be  to  the  original  form,  the  critic  should 
not  trust  to  the  ordinary  Latin  interpretation  that  may  accom- 
pany it,  else  he  will  be  misled.  By  this  confidence  Mill  was 
often  deceived. 

6.  The  characteristic  peculiarities  of  the  version  should  be 
perceived  and  attended  to.  Every  translator  has  a  method  of 
his  own  which  ouglit  to  be  noticed,  else  mistakes  will  be  com- 
mitted in  extracting  various  readings  from  his  work. 

7.  Agreeably  to  the  preceding  sentiment,  it  must  be  con- 
*  Michaelis,  De  variis  lectionibus  Novi  Testauienti,  §  66, 


GENEKAL   OBSERVATIONS   ON    VEKSIONS.  261 

sidered  whether  the  translator  has  inserted  his  own  explana- 
tion, rather  than  a  fair  version  of  the  original. 

8.  Let  it  be  observed  whether  he  has  written  ambiguously, 
or  so  that  it  cannot  be  clearly  determined  from  his  version 
what  stood  in  the  MS.  or  MSS.  before  him. 

9.  It  should  be  seen  whether  the  translator  has  erred  either 
through  the  mistake  of  the  MS.  or  MSS.  he  used,  or  through 
his  own  ignorance  of  the  language  he  had  to  do  with,  or 
through  negligence. 

10.  The  best  versions  of  the  New  Testament  are  the  old 
Syriac  and  the  Latin.  The  most  ancient,  literal,  and  faithful 
are  the  best  for  critical  purposes. 

1 1 .  Versions  belonging  to  one  class  or  family  are  considered 
to  have  no  more  than  one  voice  in  favour  of  a  reading. 

12.  No  reading  derived  from  versions  alone,  wanting  the 
support  of  other  ancient  Avitnesses,  is  likely  to  be  genuine  ;  but 
yet  the  agreement  of  ancient  versions  and  fathers  in  a  reading 
where  most  MSS.  differ,  throws  suspicion  on  its  genuineness 
in  the  latter  documents. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


MSS.  OF  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT. 

A  SECOND  source  of  critical  correction  consists  of  MSS.,  as  has 
been  already  stated. 

MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testament  may  be  divided  into  uncial 
and  cursive,  agreeably  to  the  forms  of  the  letters  employed,  or, 
to  use  modern  language,  into  such  as  are  written  with  capital 
and  small  letters.  This  seems  to  us  the  best  and  most  con- 
venient division.  But  Hug,  and  others  after  him,  arranges 
them  in  three  classes ;  first,  such  as  preceded  stichometry ; 
secondly,  stichometrical ;  thirdly,  those  written  after  sticho- 
metry had  been  laid  aside. 

Very  few  MSS.  contained  at  first  the  entire  New  Testament. 
But  the  two  most  ancient  and  valuable  ones  termed  the  Vatican 
(B.)  and  Alexandrine  (A.)  did  so.  So  too  among  the  Butler 
MSS.  in  the  British  Museum,  that  splendid  MS.  in  folio  which 
purports  to  have  been  written  by  Methodius  the  monk  in  the 
fourteenth  century  (No.  11,  837). 

The  whole  of  the  New  Testament  was  commonly  divided 
into  three  or  four  parts,  viz.  the  Gospels  ;  the  Acts  and  Epistles ; 
the  Apocalypse ;  or  the  Gospels,  the  Acts  and  Catholic 
epistles,  the  Pauline  epistles,  the  Apocalypse.  Some  have 
the  Acts  alone.  Others  contain  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles. 
Those  containing  the  four  gospels  are  the  most  numerous, 
because  that  part  of  the  New  Testament  was  most  read.     Such 


MSS.  OF    THE    GREEK    TESTAMENT.  263 

as  liave  the  Pauline  epistles  are  also  numerous.  Those  con- 
taining the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles  are  many,  but  not 
equal  in  number  to  the  Pauline.  Such  again  as  exhibit  the 
Apocalypse  alone  are  few,  because  that  book  was  seldomest 
read. 

Entire  copies  of  the  New  Testament  were  made  up  for  the 
most  part  out  of  MSS.  containing  several  parts  or  books. 
Hence  the  unity  of  the  copy  is  no  proof  of  the  unity  of  the 
text.  If  the  codices  containing  portions  of  the  inspired  writings 
were  brought  from  different  countries,  and  thus  transcribed 
together  so  as  to  make  one  entire  MS.  the  text  might  naturally 
partake  of  different  conformations,  as  is  said  to  be  the  case  in 
the  Alexandrine  MS.  (A.)  The  order  of  the  various  books 
differs  but  little.  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  then  the  Acts ; 
with  the  Catholic  epistles,  the  Pauline  epistles,  and  the  Apo- 
calypse. Sometimes,  however,  the  Pauline  epistles  come 
immediately  after  the  gospels,  the  Acts,  Catholic  epistles,  and 
Apocalypse  following.  Latin  transcribers  placed  John  after 
Matthew,  so  that  the  two  apostles,  and  the  two  evangelists 
Luke  and  Mark,  might  stand  together  respectively. 

Few  are  now  complete  in  all  their  parts.  They  are  muti- 
lated, wanting  leaves  at  the  beginning,  in  the  middle,  or  at 
the  end.  Thus  both  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  are  now 
imperfect,  which  is  true  of  almost  all  the  uncial  ones.  K.  of 
the  gospels  or  Codex  Cyprius  is  one  of  the  few  exceptions.  It 
is  necessary  to  attend  to  the  chasms,  lest  a  MS.  be  quoted  for 
or  against  a  particular  reading  in  a  place  where  it  is  defective. 

MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testament  are  in  all  forms — folio,  quarto, 
duodecimo.  They  are  also  made  of  different  materials,  of 
parchment,  cotton  paper,  paper  of  linen  rags.  Parchment  was 
generally  employed  till  the  middle  ages  when  paper  came  more 
into  use.  Sometimes  MSS.  were  ornamented  in  various  ways 
as  articles  of  luxury  and  show.  Costly  skins  were  procured, 
and  elegant  letters  written  upon  them.      The  former  were 


264  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

dyed  purple ;  the  latter  were  adorned  with  gold  and  silver. 
Chrysostom  refers  to  wealthy  individuals  whose  ambition  was 
to  possess  splendid  copies  of  this  sort.*  Few  such  codices 
however  have  come  down  to  the  present  time ;  and  the  frag- 
ments that  do  survive  shew  little  of  the  purple  dye,  or  the 
silver  and  gold  that  must  have  borne  an  attractive  appear- 
ance at  first.  The  value  of  a  MS.  does  not  depend  on  such 
things. 

The  first  material  employed,  viz.,  the  papyrus  was  soon 
abandoned.  It  was  frail  and  perishable.  As  early  as  the  fourth 
century  the  skins  of  animals  had  come  into  its  place.  This 
continued  till  the  tenth,  when  persons  began  to  choose  cotton 
paper,  (36/j,[3u^,  charta  hoivthycina.  Such  material  rendered 
it  no  longer  necessary  to  wash  out  what  was  first  written  on 
the  parchment,  a  practice  still  common  in  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth  centuries,  in  order  to  write  upon  the  costly  material 
some  work  more  wanted  or  esteemed  at  the  time.f  After  cotton 
paper  had  been  used  for  a  while,  linen-rag  paper,  presenting 
a  still  smoother  and  more  accessible  material  for  writing,  was 
adopted  and  very  generally  employed  in  Italy  during  the  fif- 
teenth and  sixteenth  centuries  for  the  New  Testament  writings. 
Black  ink  was  commonly  used  both  in  writing  the  text 
and  in  marginal  letters.  Gold  and  silver  colours  were  applied 
merely  to  the  initial  letters.  The  commencement  of  a  new 
book  was  also  frequently  ornamented  in  the  same  way.  In 
regard  to  lineSj  an  equal  number  is  regularly  contained  in  each 
page,  standing  at  equal  distances  from  one  another.  Hence 
the  copyist  must  have  made  an  exact  measurement  before  he 
began  to  write.  At  first  the  lines  were  filled  with  letters 
unconnected  and  close  to  each  other,  without  such  intervals  as 
the  diAdsion  into  words  makes,  till  stichometry  did  away  with 
the  difficulty  which  these  codices  must  have  caused  to  the  reader. 

*  Homil.  xxxi.  in  Joann. 
t  See  Montfaucon,  Palaeographia  Graeca,  p.  17,  et  seq. 


MSS.  OF   THE   GREEK   TESTAMENT.  265 

When  the  letters  constituting  each  GTiyog  ceased  to  make 
separate  lines,  and  every  line  began  to  be  filled  out  without 
restricting  it  to  a  single  er'ix^g^  for  the  purpose  of  saving- 
space,  the  old  practice  was  resumed  of  writing  the  letters  con- 
tinuously without  division,  except  a  point  at  the  end  of  each 

Before  and  after  stichometry,  each  page,  if  the  form  pre- 
sented no  obstacle,  was  divided  into  two,  more  rarely  into  three 
columns.  The  latter  number  appears  to  point  to  a  higher 
antiquity,  for  it  comes  nearer  the  Herculaneum  rolls.  These 
columns  are  most  frequently  occupied  by  the  Greek  text  alone. 
Sometimes,  however,  it  is  accompanied  with  a  version.  That 
version  is  commonly  the  old  Latin  one  which  preceded  the 
time  of  Jerome.  Yet  the  same  version  as  revised  by  Jerome, 
or  in  other  words,  the  Vulgate,  is  also  found  along  with  the 
original.  The  version  is  either  in  the  opposite  column,  or 
between  the  Greek  lines.  The  Memphitic  version  has  also 
been  found  along  with  the  Greek.  MSS.  accompanied  with 
the  Latin  are  called  Greek-Latin,  codices  hlUngues  or  Graeco- 
Latini.  The  circumstance  of  their  being  furnished  with  the 
Latin  thi'oughout  gave  rise  to  a  charge  against  them  that  the 
Greek  was  interpolated  from  the  Latin.  This  accusation  was 
made  by  Simon  and  repeated  by  Wetstein,  to  whom  it  mainly 
owed  its  currency  for  many  years.  But  Semler,  Griesbach,  and 
Woide,  did  much  to  disprove  it,  convincing  Michaelis  that  he 
had  once  been  mistaken  in  joining  with  the  accusers  of  such 
MSS.  The  charge  has  been  commonly  discredited  since  the 
various  publications  of  Griesbach.  Hence  it  is  a  work  of 
supererogation  to  go  over  the  ground  again,  for  the  purpose  of 
refuting  an  obsolete  notion.  There  is  no  more  cause  for  stig- 
matising Greek-Latin  codices  as  Latinising,  than  such  as  con- 
tain the  Greek  text  only.  Coincidence  with  the  old  Latin 
version  as  it  existed  before  Jerome's  day,  especially  in  Italy, 
is  so  far  irom  being  an  evidence  of  corruption  from  the  Latin, 


266  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

that  it  shews  very  ancient  and  good  readings.  This  old  Latin 
version  is  a  most  valuable  representative  of  the  early  text  in 
the  second  and  third  centuries. 

Where  the  contents  required  some  pause  or  intermission, 
different  expedients  were  adopted  for  marking  it  in  the  text. 
Sometimes  a  new  line  was  begun ;  sometimes  an  empty  space 
was  left,  about  as  much  as  might  contain  a  v/ord,  between  the 
end  of  the  preceding  and  beginning  of  the  new  paragraph  or 
section ;  sometimes  another  colour  was  chosen  for  the  initial 
letter  of  the  new  chapter,  red,  blue,  or  green.  But  this  last 
was  frequently  forgotten,  because  it  was  not  affixed  at  the  time 
the  rest  of  the  text  was  written  but  left  till  a  subsequent 
opportunity. 

In  the  oldest  MSS.,  which  reach  up  to  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries,  large  letters,  called  since  the  time  of  Jerome 
uncial^  were  used.  These  are  square,  upright,  regular  in  their 
form.  They  have  also  been  called  round.  The  appellation  square 
was  founded  on  the  very  common  letters  H,  M,  N,  n.  Round 
is  borrowed  from  the  letters  6 , 0,  o,  C,  *,  w.  The  form  of  the  letters 
is  the  same  with  that  found  on  marbles  belonging  to  the  fourth 
or  fifth  century,  except  in  regard  to  A  and  H,  whose  peculiarity 
of  shape  at  this  time  may  be  seen  in  Montfaucon.*  E,  2,  n,  never 
occur  in  this  form.  Of  course  the  height  and  size  of  the  letters 
was  in  proportion  to  the  form  of  the  MS.,  whether  the  latter 
was  in  folio,  quarto,  octavo,  &c.  This  character  prevailed  with 
little  alteration  till  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries,  when  the 
letters  c,  6 ,  o,  0,  lost  their  round  form,  being  made  narrower  to 
save  space;  and  others,  as  z,  s,x,  were  lengthened  above  or  below 
the  line.  Indeed,  the  letters  were  generally  made  longer  and 
narrower,  and  sometimes  leaning  towards  the  right,  sometimes 
towards  the  left  hand.  In  this  oblong,  leaning  character,  which 
characterises  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries,  are  written  many 
MSS.  intended  for  ecclesiastical  use,  especially  in  choirs, 
*  Palaeographia,  p.  185. 


MSS.  OF   THE   GREEK   TESTAMENT.  267 

whence  they  have  little  signs  and  lines  of  various  shapes  to 
regulate  the  inflexions  of  the  voice.  Such  MSS.  exist,  belong- 
ing not  merely  to  the  eighth  and  ninth  centiuries,  but  also  to 
the  tenth,  and  perhaps  later.* 

Accents  and  spirits  were  introduced  about  the  seventh 
century.  They  are  both  in  the  cod.  Claromontanus,  though 
not  a  prima  manu. 

Two  dots  are  often  observed  over  the  letters  i  and  t  in  MSS., 
thus  i  t.  These  were  intended  to  shew  that  the  letters  should 
be  taken  separately,  and  not  joined  with  others  to  form  a  dip- 
thong.  Such  points  can  scarcely  be  used  in  determining  the 
age  of  a  ]\IS.,  least  of  all  do  they  shew,  as  has  been  erroneously 
said,  that  a  MS.  is  not  more  ancient  than  the  eighth  century. 
They  are  in  the  Clermont  MS.,  which  belongs  to  the  seventh 
or  end  of  the  sixth  century.f  They  are  also  in  MSS.  of  the 
fifth  and  sixth,  for  example  in  z  or  the  Dublin  rescript,  but  at 
the  beginning  of  words. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  ninth  century,  the  small  or  cursive 
writing  began,  and  became  general  in  the  tenth.  The  first 
MS.  that  may  be  said  to  have  the  cm'sive  writing  has  the 
certain  date  a.d.  890.  Yet  the  MS.  in  question  (cod.  Colbert. 
340),  containing  the  lives  of  the  saints  for  certain  months,  is 
not  exactly  in  the  common  cursive  character,  for  it  has  some 
traces  of  resemblance  to  the  older,  as  indeed  might  be 
expected.  This  MS.  alone  is  sufiicient  to  refute  the  assertion 
that  a  cursive  MS.  cannot  be  older  than  the  tenth  century. 
Montfaucon  gives  specimens  of  two  others  belonging  to  the 
ninth,  written  in  cursive  characters.  X  When  transcribers  were 
not  native  Greeks,  they  adhered  more  closely  and  longer  to  the 
forms  of  the  uncial  letters  before  them  than  the  native  Greeks, 
who  after  the  ninth  century  followed  the  taste  of  their  time  in 
the  cursive  character. 

*  Montfaucon,  p.  231.  t  See  Montfaucon,  p.  33. 

\  Ibid  pp.  269,  270. 


268  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

At  first  the  strokes  and  twists  belonging"  to  the  cursive 
letters  made  them  very  like  one  another,  so  that  it  is  difficult 
to  ascertain  the  exact  age  of  MSS.  belonging  to  the  tenth, 
eleventh,  and  twelfth  centuries  when  they  have  no  date.  This 
similarity  in  form  reaches  even  into  the  thirteenth  and  four- 
teenth centuries ;  but  there  the  material  lessens  the  difficulty  of 
finding  out  the  age. 

Particular  countries  had  their  own  peculiarities  in  regard  to 
the  arrangement  of  the  contents  of  MSS.,  the  form  of  the 
letters  and  other  external  particulars.  Tlius  rough,  irregularly 
shaped  traces  and  forms  betray  one  who  was  not  a  Greek ; 
whereas  simple,  uniform,  elegant  characters  shew  a  Greek 
copyist  in  Greek  provinces.  Letters  approaching  the  Coptic 
evince  an  Egyptian  transcriber,  who  had  also  a  peculiar  ortho- 
graphy, such  as  that  in  B.  or  the  Vatican  MS.  Characters 
which  resemble  the  Latin  shew  a  western  copyist,  for  example 
one  belonging  to  the  south  of  France.  Even  the  different 
colours  and  ornamenting  of  letters  may  serve  to  indicate 
localities. 

In  the  earliest  centuries  abbreviations  were  not  frequent. 
They  were  used  only  in  common  words  such  as,  ©C,  KC,  IC, 
xc,  uc,  iHP.  And  there  is  little  doubt  that  letters  were  used 
for  numbers,  as  in  the  Apocalypse,  xiii.  18. 

Correction-marks  are  numerous.  Sometimes  the  word  or 
words  which  the  copyist  or  corrector  intended  to  remove  had  a 
point  over  every  letter,  or  a  horizontal  stroke;  sometimes  the  pen 
was  drawn  through  them ;  sometimes  the  reading  condemned 
was  surrounded  with  points ;  sometimes  it  was  washed  ovei 
with  a  sponge  or  scraped  with  a  pen-knife,  and  the  right  reading 
written  over  it.  Yet  the  original  reading  could  be  often  dec' 
phered  either  wholly  or  in  part.  Many  a  MS.  has  passed 
through  the  hands  of  several  correctors,  who  may  be  distin- 
guished by  the  peculiarity  of  their  letters,  the  difference  of  their 
ink,  and  other  minute  particulars.     IMany  a  copy  has  been 


MSS.  OF   THE   GREEK   TESTAMENT.  269 

corrected  very  cursorily.  Others  have  received  a  thorough 
revision,  and  are  marked  with  many  corrections  even  from  one 
hand.  Such  corrections  arose  when  the  copyist  transcribed 
after  one  exemplar  and  corrected  according  to  another ;  when 
he  had  several  MSS.  before  him  whose  texts  presented  a 
variety  of  readings ;  or  when  he  altered  his  opinion  on  certain 
parts  of  the  text  during  the  progress  of  his  work.  Hence  none 
need  be  surprised  to  find  in  IMSS.  late  readings  along  with 
ancient  ones. 

The  margin  upper  and  lower  is  occupied  with  various 
things  which  deserve  attention.  After  the  fourth  century,  the 
xspaXa/a,  r/VXo/,  canons  of  Eusebius,  and  the  Ammonian 
sections  were  placed  in  the  margin  sometimes  partially,  some- 
times together. 

Reading  lessons  were  also  marked  in  the  margin  by  a  and 
T  (do^ri  and  rsXog)  Occasionally  accompanied  with  a  statement 
of  the  day  on  which  they  should  be  read.  But  the  majority 
of  marginal  remarks  consist  of  scholia,  extracts  from  commen- 
taries, catenae  critical  and  exegetical,  as  well  as  corrections  of 
mistakes  made  in  the  text.  These  scholia  reach  up  to  Irenaeus 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  though  they  are  mostly  drawn 
from  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  still  later 
authors,  such  as  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Photius,  and  Euthymius 
Zygabenus.  There  are  also  musical  signs  in  the  margin  with 
red  or  black  ink. 

Besides  MSS.  that  contain  all  or  some  of  the  New 
Testament  books,  there  are  others  occupied  with  such  select 
portions  as  were  appointed  to  be  read  in  the  public  services 
of  the  churches.  These  are  Lectionaries  or  lesson-books. 
The  greater  number  have  lessons  or  sections  from  the  four 
gospels  and  are  thence  termed  suayysXKTrd^ia,  Evangelistaria 
or  Evangeliaria;  but  others  have  portions  of  the  Acts  and 
epistles,  TgagaTooroXo/,  Lectionaria.  In  these  codices  occur  the 
words  ''Jesus  spake"  prefixed  to  the  speeches  of  Christ  in  the 


270  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

gospels ;  adsXtpoi  h'ethren,  in  letters  addressed  to  churches ;  and 
Tsxvov  Ti/Mhs  in  those  to  Timothy.  Such  expressions  were 
merely  introductory,  and  designed  for  the  officiating  minister. 
Yet  they  were  often  transferred  to  other  codices,  where  they 
have  produced  various  readings,  though  spuiious  ones. 
Matthaei,  among  all  the  critical  editors,  paid  most  attention  to 
this  class  of  MSS.,  which  is  not  counted  of  equal  value  with 
MSS.  of  the  same  antiquity  containing  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  complete.* 

*  Michaelis's  Introduction  by  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  p.  161. 


CHAPTER   XX. 


DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  UNCIAL  MSS. 

A.  The  first  letter  of  the  alphabet  is  used  to  designate  the 
codex  Alexandrinus,  or  Alexandrine  MS.  now  in  the  British 
Museum.  This  MS.  was  presented  to  Charles  the  First  in 
1628  through  his  ambassador  at  Constantinople,  by  Cyril 
Lucar,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  who  brought  it  immediately 
from  Egypt,  whence  the  name  Alexandrinus.  There  is  an 
Arabic  subscription  on  the  reverse  of  the  leaf,  containing  a 
list  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  books,  which  says  that  the 
book  was  written  by  the  martyress  Thecla ;  but  no  reliance 
can  be  placed  on  its  accuracy. 

The  MS.  consists  of  four  volumes  folio,  the  first  three  con- 
taining the  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  the  last  the  New  Testa- 
ment, with  the  first  epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
part  of  the  second.  In  some  places  of  the  New  Testament  it 
is  defective,  as  at  the  commencement  of  Matthew's  gospel,  for 
it  begins  with  xxv.  6.  It  is  also  deficient  in  John  vi.  50 — viii. 
52  ;  and  from  2  Corinth,  iv.  13 — xii.  6.  Here  and  there  too 
single  letters  are  wanting,  which  were  cut  off  by  the  book- 
binder. The  various  parts  of  the  New  Testament  follow  one 
another,  as  they  are  placed  in  the  editions  of  Lachmann  and 
Tischendorf. 

The  letters  are  uncial,  somewhat  round,  larger  and  more 


272  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

elegant  than  those  in  B.  or  the  Vatican  MS.  The  words  are 
not  separated,  there  are  no  accents  or  marks  of  aspiration,  no 
trace  of  stichometry,  and  the  abbreviations  are  few,  and  almost 
always  in  common  words.  Semler  supposes  that  the  more 
ancient  MS.  from  which  it  was  copied  had  a  greater  number 
of  abbreviations,  and  that  not  a  few  errors  committed  by  the 
transcriber  arose  from  a  false  method  of  deciphering  the  marks. 
The  initial  letters  of  the  different  sections  into  which  the  text 
is  divided  are  much  larger  than  the  rest,  and  stand  out  in  the 
margin  of  the  column. 

As  to  sections,  there  is  an  enumeration  of  the  rirXoi  or 
larger  ones  at  the  beginning  of  each  gospel.  Their  titles  or 
subjects  were  also  given  in  the  upper  margin,  but  most  have 
disappeared  thence.  The  smaller  portions  or  Ammonian  sec- 
tions called  xspaXa/a  are  numbered  in  the  left  margin,  with 
the  references  to  the  canons  of  Eusebius.  In  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  the  Catholic  and  Pauline  epistles,  there  are  no  such 
chapters  as  Euthalius  made  or  adopted.  But  paragraphs  and 
periods  are  frequent  in  them,  as  marked  by  a  new  line  and  a 
larger  letter.  In  the  Acts,  the  mark  of  a  cross  (x)  used  in 
two  of  the  gospels  at  the  beginning  of  the  yafakata  occurs  five 
times.  But  Hug  contends  that  the  cross  marks  no  such  divi- 
sion as  a  chapter,  because  it  sometimes  occurs  in  the  gospels 
in  the  middle  of  a  discourse,  and  even  in  the  middle  of  a  sen- 
tence.* In  the  Apocalypse,  the  Xoyoi  and  %i<pakaia  of  Andrew 
of  Caesarea  are  not  marked.  There  are  also  brief  inscriptions 
of  the  books  at  the  commencement,  and  subscriptions  at  the 
end.  The  only  interpunction  used  is  a  simple  point,  but  there 
is  sometimes  a  vacant  space.  Other  marks,  sometimes  dis- 
tinguishing the  end  of  words,  especially  of  monosyllables  and 
proper  names,  and  even  the  end  of  syllables,  whether  in  the 
middle  or  at  the  termination  of  lines,  are  '  - '  ".  Iota  or  I  has 
often  two  dots  over  it  I ;  and  T  in  the  same  way  t  ;  shewing 
*  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  241. 


DESCRIPTION   OF    THE    UNCIAL   MSS-  273 

that  they  should  be  separated  from  other  letters.  On  each 
page  there  are  two  columns.* 

The  age  of  this  MS.  was  once  much  contested,  some  as- 
signing it  to  the  fourth  century  as  Grabe,  Woide,  and  Schulze ; 
Oudin  to  the  tenth;  others  to  the  fifth  or  beginning  of  the 
sixth,  as  Wetstein  and  Montfaucon.  The  various  arguments 
for  and  against  certain  dates  are  anything  but  conclusive,  and 
not  worth  repeating.  Thus  Woide  founds  an  argument  re- 
specting the  time  of  its  being  written  on  the  omission  of  the 
Euthalian  sections  which  appeared  from  the  hand  of  Euthalius 
in  458.  He  argues  that  the  MS.  was  written  afterwards, 
else  the  Euthalian  sections  would  have  been  marked  in  it. 
But  this  is  inconclusive,  for  respect  must  be  had  to  the  copy 
from  which  the  MS.  was  taken.  If  the  transcriber  adhered  to 
the  copy  before  him  he  might  very  naturally  disregard  the 
innovations  or  improvements  of  Euthalius,  though  they  had  ap- 
peared in  the  interval  between  the  exemplar  and  his  transcript. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  the  codex  Alexandrinus  was  not 
written  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  and  that 
Egypt  was  the  country  of  its  birth.  This  is  gathered  from  its 
Egyptian  orthography,  'kniJ'-^ovTai^  Mark  xii.  40 ;  Phil.  iv.  15, 
Xri/jt,-<^iug ;  Colos.  iii.  24,  dToX'/j/^t.^'So'^e.  There  are  also  such 
Alexandrine  forms  in  the  second  aorist  as  av  of  the  third  plural 
and  the  like,  Acts  x.  39,  dvuXav,  but  they  are  not  so  common 
as  in  the  cod.  Vaticanus.  The  interchange  of  s  and  a/,  si  and  /, 
/  and  rj,  s  and  e/,  x  and  7,  v  and  /*  is  very  frequent.  The  confu- 
sion of  vowels  of  similar  sound  is  greater  than  in  any  other  MS. ; 
and  all  the  probabilities  of  the  case  are  in  favour  of  Egypt. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  Woide,  that  the  MS.  was  written 
by  two  copyists,  for  he  observed  a  difference  of  ink  and  parch- 
ment, a  difference  in  the  letters,  and  certain  varieties  in  the 
beginning  of  books  and  sections,  f 

+  See  Woidii  Notitia  codicis  Alexandrini,  ed.  Spohn,  p.  23,  et  s€iq. 
t  Notitia,  &c.  p.  21. 
VOL.   IT.  T 


274  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  scribe  or  scribes  were 
inattentive  and  careless  in  their  work.  The  orthographical 
mistakes  are  numerous.  So  too  are  the  omissions,  as  Spohn 
has  abundantly  shewn.  *  There  are  a  great  number  of  correc- 
tions. Many  things  have  been  scraped  out  with  a  knife,  or 
washed  with  a  sponge.  Erasures,  single  letters  omitted  and 
then  written  above,  are  by  no  means  uncommon.  If  there  was 
a  reviser  distinct  from  the  original  scribe,  he  was  equally 
negligent ;  for  his  coi-rections  are  sometimes  inserted  in  wrong 
places.  These  and  other  defects  which  Wetstein  clearly  per- 
ceived long  ago,  and  Woide  gently  excused,  detract  consider- 
ably from  the  value  of  the  MS.  Yet  with  all  deductions,  the 
codex  Alexandrinus  is  a  veiy  important  MS.  Its  antiquity  is 
great,  and  its  readings  entitled  to  considerable  attention, 
inasmuch  as  they  agree  generally  with  other  very  ancient  au- 
thorities. In  relation  to  the  recension  to  which  its  text 
belongs,  a  point  touched  upon  by  Semler,  Griesbach  and 
many  others,  we  need  not  inquire,  as  the  entire  subject  of  re- 
censions is  now  viewed  in  a  very  different  liglit.  The  MS.  is 
one  of  the  authorities  included  in  the  western  class,  and  may 
therefore  be  supposed  to  represent,  as  far  as  a  single  document 
can  do  so,  the  state  of  the  text  in  Egypt  in  the  fourth  century. 
We  lament  the  fact  of  the  copyist  or  copyists  being  so  careless 
and  incompetent ;  for  by  that  means  the  text  has  greatly  suf- 
fered :   but  tliere  is  no  remedy  for  it. 

The  New  Testament  was  published  from  this  i\IS.  in  types 
made  to  resemble  the  writing,  by  Woide,  in  a  folio  volume, 
1786,  London,  to  which  the  editor  prefixed  valuable  prolego- 
mena containing  a  minute  description  of  the  MS.  The  prole- 
gomena were  reprinted  at  Leipzig  by  Spohu  in  1 788,  8vo, 
with  improvements,  coiTCctions,  and  additions.  This  fac- 
simile volume  has  superseded  subsequent  collation,  for  tliere 
is  no  doubt  that  it  is  generally  correct.  A  feio  errors  have 
*  Notitia,  &c.  p.  186. 


DESCRIPTION    OF  THE    UNCIAL   MSS.  275 

been  detected  in  it.  Mr.  Linnell,  however,  only  found  two 
letters  wrongly  given  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  with 
some  inaccuracies  in  the  punctuation.  The  Old  Testament 
part  of  the  MS.  was  afterwards  published  in  fac-simile  under 
the  editorship  of  Rev.  H.  H.  Baber,  in  four  volumes  folio, 
or  more  properly  three,  for  the  fourth  volume  contains  notes 
and  prolegomena. 

B.  Cod.  Vaticanus.  In  the  Vatican  Library  there  is  an 
ancient  MS.  numbered  209,  which  is  usually  distinguished  as 
the  Vatican  MS.  by  way  of  eminence.  How  it  got  there,  or 
from  what  country,  is  wholly  unknown.  Its  external  history 
is  involved  in  obscurity. 

The  Vatican  MS.  or  B.  consists  of  one  volume  small  folio 
or  quarto,  containing  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  \d\h 
various  deficiencies.  Thus  the  New  Testament  is  defective 
from  Hebrews  ix.  14  to  the  end  of  the  Apocalypse.  Hence 
the  latter  part  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  two  to 
Timothy,  those  to  Titus  and  Philemon,  with  the  Apocalypse, 
are  wanting,  though  they  must  have  been  originally  there. 
The  order  in  which  the  books  stand  is  the  gospels.  Acts,  seven 
Catholic  epistles,  and  Paul's  epistles,  including  that  to  the 
Hebrews.  The  remainder  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and 
the  Apocalypse  have  been  supplied  by  a  modem  hand  in  the 
fifteenth  century. 

This  MS.  is  of  very  fine  parchment  with  characters  square, 
beautiful,  uniform,  and  written  with  great  care.  The  letters 
are  smaller  than  those  of  the  cod.  Alexandrinus,  and  a  shade 
larger  than  those  in  the  MS.  of  Philodemus  tsw'  /xcuc/x^c,  the 
first  of  the  Herculaneum  rolls  which  was  unfolded.  The 
letters  follow  each  other  closely  and  continuously  at  equal  dis- 
tances without  division  of  words.  Where  a  complete  nan-ative 
terminates,  or  there  is  a  change  from  one  subject  to  another, 
a  space  is  left  of  the  breadth  of  half  a  letter  and  sometimes  of 
an  entire  one.     The  initial  letters  do  not  differ  from  the  rest ) 


276  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

but  larger  initial  letters  were  written  over  the  original  ones  by 
a  later  hand.     There  are  three  columns  in  each  page. 

Long  ago,  the  characters  had  faded  so  mucli  that  it  was 
necessary  to  retouch  them  with  new  ink.  In  the  course  of 
time  another  person  undertook  to  remedy  the  faintness  of  the 
second  application  of  ink  in  various  places.  Hence  the  original 
characters  appear  only  in  places  where  the  calligraphist  wrote 
some  things  badly  or  twice. 

There  is  no  interpunction  in  the  MS.  Even  where  a  very 
small  space  is  left  at  the  end  of  a  discourse  or  subject,  there  is 
no  trace  of  a  point.  Those  who  retouched  the  characters  with 
new  ink  sometimes  ventured  to  insert  points ;  but  it  would 
appear  that  the  original  scribe  did  not.  Yet  these  points  sel- 
dom occur.  Hug  observes  that  there  are  but  four  in  the  first 
six  chapters  of  Matthew.     In  the  Acts  they  occur  oftener.* 

It  was  formerly  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  the  codex  had 
at  first  accents  and  marks  of  aspiration.  The  fac-simile  given 
of  it  by  Blanchini  f  represented  it  without  both ;  and  Mont- 
faucon  expressly  affirmed  that  it  had  no  accents.^  Birch§ 
asserted  that  it  had  both,  and  blamed  Blanchini  for  neglect- 
ing to  mark  the  fact.  How  was  the  testimony  of  these  eye- 
witnesses to  be  reconciled  ?  After  a  very  minute  examination 
of  the  MS.  with  and  without  glasses,  Hug  shewed  that  the 
accents  and  spirits  were  added  by  a  later  hand.  Wherever 
the  original  writing  appeared  without  receiving  later  touches 
of  ink,  no  trace  of  accents  or  spirits  was  visible.  Tlie  MS.  has 
inscriptions  or  titles  to  the  books,  and  subscriptions.  The 
former  are  very  simple,  and  found  at  the  top  of  the  page,  yiara 
Madda/bv,  Tiara.  Md^zovj  &c.  The  subscriptions  are  nothing  but 
repetitions  of  the  titles ;  what  is  additional  having  proceeded 

*  De  Antiquitate  codicis  Vaticani,  p.  98  of  the  reprint  in  Penn's  An- 
notations to  the  Book  of  the  New  Covenant. 

f  Evangel iariuD!!  Quadruplex,  vol.  i.  at  p.  CDXcri. 
X  Bibliotheca  bibliothecarum,  vol.  i.  p.  3.    §  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  15. 


DESCRIPTION   OF   THE    UNCIAL   MSS.  277 

from  a  second  hand.  Thus  -rfog  Pu/j^alovg  is  the  genuine 
subscription  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  to  which  was  after- 
wards appended  iypdiprj  aco  Ko^ivdov.  It  should  be  observed, 
that  the  subscriptions  are  not  the  Euthalian  ones. 

In  the  gospels,  the  Ammonian  sections  and  the  canons  of 
Eusebius  are  entirely  wanting.  The  MS.  has  divisions  of  its 
own,  of  which  there  are  1 70  in  Matthew's  gospel,  72  in  Mark, 
152  in  Luke,  and  80  in  John.  The  Acts  of  the  apostles  has 
the  ancient  Egyptian  church  lessons,  which,  according  to 
Euthalius,  were  36;  and  so  they  are  here.  A  later  hand, 
however,  appended  another  division  of  the  book  consisting  of 
69  chapters  ;  but  this  is  not  the  Euthalian.  The  same  obser- 
vations apply  to  the  Catholic  epistles,  in  which  neither  the  ori- 
ginal nor  the  later  division  given  in  the  MS.  coincides  with 
that  of  Euthalius. 

The  divisions  of  the  Pauline  epistles  are  quite  singular. 
All  together  are  considered  as  one  book,  and  the  sections  num- 
bered throughout,  having  the  number  64  at  the  place  where 
the  MS.  stops.  These  numbers  also  shew  that  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  originally  stood  after  that  to  the  Galatians,  be- 
cause the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  concludes  with  the  59th 
section  and  that  to  the  Hebrews  begins  with  the  60tli;  the 
second  to  the  Thessalonians  ending  with  the  93d.  Hence  it 
has  been  inferred  that  the  transposition  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  from  its  place  after  the  Galatian  one  to  the  end  of 
the  second  to  the  Thessalonians,  had  been  made  so  recently 
that  the  division  of  sections  was  not  altered. 

As  to  the  orthography  of  the  MS.  it  is  very  correct.  There 
is  no  confounding  of  vowels  similar  in  sound  except  that  £/ 
is  often  used  for  /.  Nu  ephelkustic  is  often  added,  where  gram- 
marians would  pronounce  it  improper.  But  modern  rules  of 
grammar  are  of  no  consequence  in  judging  of  a  very  ancient 
document  like  the  present.  Its  country  is  shewn  to  be  Egypt 
by  such  forms  as  evXXrjfi-^ri,  X^j/A-^/gc^i,  Xri/j.(pdri(rtTai,  Xri/i<pdivraj  &c. 


278  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

The  second  aorist  and  imperfect  have  also  the  form  of  the  first 
aorist,  as  i^riXdars,  narjXdart,  si-Trav,  rjXdav,  sidav.  Such  peculiari- 
ties are  Alexandrine,  occurring  besides  in  Coptic  or  Graeco- 
coptic  documents,  and  an  inscription  on  the  Memnon  of  Thebes. 
The  antiquity  of  the  MS.  is  very  great.  For  determining 
it  a  number  of  points  must  be  brought  together,  such  as  the 
near  affinity  of  the  character  to  that  in  the  Herculaneum  rolls  ; 
the  twofold  retouching  of  the  letters ;  the  continuous  sequence 
of  words  without  any  separation  or  interpunction ;  the  accents 
added  by  a  later  hand  with  other  ink ;  the  form  of  the  MS. 
approaching  to  the  more  ancient  rolls,  and  the  number  of 
columns  adapted  to  it ;  the  height,  breadth,  and  intervals  of 
those  columns  resembling  very  much  the  rolls  of  Herculaneum. 
These  particulars  carry  up  the  codex  to  an  age  beyond  any 
other  biblical  MS.  known  to  exist.  Other  indications  of  its 
antiquity  are  found  in  the  additions  to  the  subscriptions  put  by 
a  second  hand  which  were  still  prior  to  those  of  Euthalius ; 
the  absence  of  the  Ammonian  sections  which  came  into  general 
use  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century ;  the  twofold  division 
into  sections  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles,  the  second  itself 
differing  from  that  of  Euthalius ;  the  singular  distribution  of 
the  Pauline  epistles  into  sections,  as  if  they  were  but  one 
book ;  the  position  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  had 
been  shifted  from  its  place  after  the  Galatian  epistle  quite 
recently,  and  put  after  the  Thessalonian  epistles  where  it  usually 
was  in  the  time  of  Athanasius ;  and  tlie  omission  of  the  words 
h  'E<psaoj  from  the  text  at  the  commencement  of  tlie  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  though  they  are  subjoined  a  prima  manu  in  the  mar- 
gin, agreeably  to  the  assertion  of  Basil  that  those  words  were 
wanting  in  ancient  MSS.  Relying  upon  such  marks,  Hug  as- 
signs the  MS.  to  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century,*  an  opinion 
in  which  Tischendorf  coincides.  Blanchini  had  formerly  refer- 
red it  to  the  fifth  century,  and  ]\Iontfaucon  to  the  fifth  or  sixth. 
*  Commentatio,  &c.  p.  112. 


DESCRIPTION   OF   THE   UNCIAL   MSS.  279 

The  internal  excellence  of  the  readings  is  in  harmony  with 
the  accuracy  of  the  copyist  in  giving  a  faithful  transcript  of  his 
exemplar.  The  text  is  free  on  the  whole  from  the  arbitrary 
interpolations  and  corrections  found  in  some  other  MSS. 

It  is  useless  at  the  present  day  to  repeat  the  brief  descrip- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  part  of  this  MS.  given  by  Zacagni 
in  1698,  in  his  Collectanea  Monumentorum,  and  extracted  by 
Mill  as  well  as  Wetstein  in  their  prolegomena  to  the  Greek 
Testament.  It  would  be  equally  unprofitable  at  the  present 
time  to  cite  the  words  of  Paul  Bombasius  in  an  epistle  to 
Erasmus,  a.d.  1521,  the  unsatisfactory  notices  of  it  by  Eras- 
mus, or  the  words  of  the  editors  of  the  Septuagint  which  was 
taken  from  it  under  the  auspices  of  Sixtus  the  fifth.  Such 
particulars  are  collected  by  Wetstein  in  his  prolegomena. 
The  first  tolerably  good  description  of  it  was  given  by  Birch ; 
though  it  Avas  by  no  means  so  ample  and  accurate  as  might 
have  been  expected.  Hug's  commentatio  published  in  1810, 
and  since  reprinted  by  Granville  Penn  in  "  Annotations  to  the 
book  of  tlie  New  Covenant,"  contains  the  minutest  and  most 
accm-ate  description  of  it  which  has  been  given.  What  is 
wanted  is  a  tJiorough  and  accurate  collation  of  it.  This  were  a 
most  desirable  thing.  At  present,  however,  there  is  not  much 
prospect  of  obtaining  such  a  collation,  since  individuals  are 
only  allowed  to  look  at  it.  In  the  meantime,  critical  editors 
must  rely  upon  the  thi*ee  existing  collations  of  it  made  by 
Bartolocci,  Bentley  (or  rather  for  him),  and  Birch.  The  col- 
lation of  the  first  is  preserved  among  the  MSS.  in  the  Biblio- 
theque  du  Roi  at  Paris.  It  is  very  imperfect.  The  second, 
made  for  Bentley  by  Mico  an  Italian,  is  the  most  complete, 
notwithstanding  all  its  imperfections.  This  collation  trans- 
cribed by  Woide  was  published  by  Ford  in  1799,  at  the  end 
of  the  work  entitled.  Appendix  ad  editionem  Novi  Testamenti 
Graeci  e  codice  MS.  Alexandrino  a  Car.  God.  Woide  descripti^ 
(Ssc.     Birch  examined  all  except  the  gospels  of  Luke  and  John, 


280  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

where  he  used  Bentley's  collation.  But  his  collation  is  hasty 
and  inaccurate.  With  all  the  discrepancies  of  these  three, 
Tischendorf  and  even  Muralt  had  to  rely  upon  them,  except  in 
the  few  cases  where  they  obtained  an  opportunity  themselves 
of  examining  various  passages  in  the  MS. 

Much  has  been  said,  and  a  good  deal  written,  about  the 
publication  of  the  Vatican  MS.  by  Angelo  Mai.  But  very 
little  is  known  of  such  an  edition.  One  thing  is  pretty  certain, 
that  no  edition  of  it  engraved  on  copper  plates  in  facsimile 
letters  is  in  progress.  The  words  of  Tischendorf,  though  in- 
definite enough,  set  aside  the  notion  of  ?i  facsimile  with  types 
cut  to  resemble  the  letters.  After  saying  that  Mai  showed 
him  in  1843  five  printed  volumes,  the  fifth  containing  the 
New  Testament,  he  adds,  "  Quae  editio,  brevi  opinor  proditura, 
quanquam  non  erit  ejusmodi  ut  ipsum  codicem  accuratissime 
exprimatj  magnopere  tamen  varias  codicis  collationes  supple- 
bit."*  What  has  been  prepared  by  Mai  is  an  edition  of  the 
text  printed  like  Tischendorf's  codex  Ephraemi  rescriptus. 
We  know  no  better  fac-simile  of  B.  than  that  given  by  Blan- 
chini.f     Tischendorf's  I  contains  but  a  few  words. 

B.  Cod.  Vaticanus,  No.  2066,  formerly  Basilianus  105. 
This  folio  MS.  contains  the  Apocalypse  entire,  besides  various 
works  of  the  fathers,  as  homilies  of  Basil  and  Gregory  Nyssene. 
The  Apocalypse  stands  among  these  homilies. 

The  Greek  text  has  the  accents  and  spirits  a  prima  manu. 
The  use  of  them  is  continued  and  tolerably  accurate.  It  for- 
merly belonged  to  the  monks  of  the  order  of  St.  Basil  in 
Rome,  whence  it  was  transferred  to  the  Vatican. 

Blanchini  was  the  first  who  drew  attention  to  this  MS. 
and  gave  a  fac-simile  of  it.§     It  was  collated  for  Wetstein  by 

*  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  58. 
•j"  Evangeliariiim  Quadruplex,  vol,  i.  at  p.  cdxcii. 

X  Studien  mid  Kritiken  for  1847,  p.  128. 
§  Evangeliariuni  Quadruplex,  vol.  ii.  after  p.  -504. 


DESCRIPTION   OF  THE    UNCIAL   MSS.  281 

order  of  Cardinal  Quirini,  for  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. But  it  was  very  imperfectly  collated,  as  Tischendorf 
has  shewn.  Out  of  the  seventh  chapter  Wetstein  gives  but 
one  various  reading,  and  that  is  incorrect.  Twenty-four  should 
have  been  produced.*  In  1843  Tischendorf  transcribed  all 
its  various  readings  into  his  first  edition,  and  made  a  careful 
fac-simile,  which  have  been  since  published  in  "  Monumenta 
Sacra  inedita^^  (p.  409,  et  seq.)  It  has  been  re-examined  by 
Tregelles,  who  collated  accurately  four  pages.  The  uncial 
character  is  leaning,  and  holds  an  intermediate  place  between 
the  older  and  oblong  forms.  The  MS.  may  be  attributed  to 
the  eighth  century,  and  is  very  valuable  from  the  scarcity  of 
uncial  MSS.  in  the  Apocalypse. 

C.  Codex  Ephraemi  rescrijjtus.  This  is  a  rescript  MS.  in 
folio  size,  on  parchment,  now  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris 
(No.  9).  Several  works  of  Ephrem  the  Syrian  were  written 
over  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  The  MS. 
consists  of  209  leaves  containing  fragments  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  145  of  them  belonging  to  the  latter,  and 
having  considerable  portions  of  all  the  books  except  2  John 
and  2  Thessalonians.  The  exact  contents  are  given  by  Tis- 
chendorf, who  states,  that  almost  37  chapters  out  of  89  are 
wanting  in  the  four  gospels ;  nearly  10  out  of  28  in  the  Acts ; 
almost  7  of  the  21  contained  in  the  Catholic  epistles ;  nearly 
35  of  the  100  in  the  Pauline  epistles;  and  almost  8  out  of  the 
22  belonging  to  the  Apocalypse.f 

The  order  of  the  books  is  the  same  as  in  A.  and  B.  viz. 
the  gospels.  Acts,  Catholic  and  Pauline  epistles,  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  after  the  second  to  the  Thessalonians,  and 
before  the  first  to  Timothy,  and  the  Apocalypse.  The  text  is 
not  divided  into  columns. 

There  are  four  different  forms  of  writing — first  tlie  most 

*   Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  74. 
■j"  Prolegomena  in  Cod.  Ephraem.  Syr.  rescript,  p.  15. 


282  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

ancient,  secondly  the  writing  of  the  first  corrector,  thirdly  that 
of  the  second  corrector,  and  fourthly  that  used  in  the  works  of 
Ephrem  the  Syrian. 

The  most  ancient  writing  is  continuous,  having  neither 
accents  nor  spirits.  As  to  the  shape  of  the  letters,  it  resembles 
very  much  what  is  found  in  the  most  ancient  MSS.,  such  as 
A.  B.  and  D.  or  the  Cambridge  MS.  hereafter  to  be  described. 
It  is  most  like  A.  It  is  peculiar  to  our  MS.  that  I  and  T, 
when  to  be  pronounced  separately,  instead  of  having  two  dots 
over  them  have  a  very  small  line.  The  size  of  the  letters  is 
not  everywhere  the  same.  Tliey  are  usually  smaller  than 
those  of  A.  B.  and  D.  or  the  Clermont,  and  of  about  the 
same  size  as  those  in  D.  or  the  Cambridge  copy. 

The  only  interpunction  of  the  MS.  consists  in  a  point, 
which  is  usually  placed  at  the  middle  of  a  letter,  with  few 
exceptions.  The  space  of  a  letter  was  generally  left  between 
those  where  the  point  was  put.  But  the  interpunction  is  not 
equable  in  diiFerent  books.  It  is  most  frequent  in  the  Pauline 
epistles. 

Initial  letters  larger  than  the  rest  are  found  at  the  begin- 
ning of  each  book  and  of  the  small  sections,  larger  than  our 
verses,  into  which  it  is  divided.  They  are  also  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Ammonian  sections. 

In  the  gospels  the  codex  has  the  Ammonian  sections,  not 
the  Eusebian,  as  Hug  erroneously  affirms.  The  larger  chapters 
(tItXoi)  are  not  indicated  at  the  text  itself  by  a  Tj-Xog  (the 
subject  of  them)  or  by  any  other  mark,  but  in  a  separate  list. 

In  the  Acts  as  well  as  the  Catholic  and  Pauline  epistles, 
there  is  no  trace  of  the  Euthalian  chapters.  Nor  is  there  any 
trace  of  chapters  in  the  Apocalypse. 

The  inscriptions  and  subscriptions  are  very  simple.  Thus 
Luke's  gospel  has  furxyyiXiov  %ara.  Aouxaw  The  epistlc  to  the 
Romans  -^fos  ^ui^aiovg^  &c. 

With  respect  to  the  country  where  it  was  written,  all 


DESCRIPTION   OF  THE    UNCIAL   MSS.  283 

internal  evidence  is  in  favour  of  Egypt.  The  character  of  the 
text,  and  the  grammatical  forms  agree  with  such  codices  as 
originated  in  Egypt  or  at  Alexandria. 

The  forms  and  inflexions  usually  called  Alexandrine  are 
numerous,  as  a'jro'krifL-^iah,  XrnM-^irai^  gvvXvTrovfisvog,  avaXrif/,(p6iig, 
tiBav^  eiTav,  sXdaro,  &c.  In  this  respect  it  coincides  with  the 
Vatican,  Alexandrine,  and  other  ancient  MSS. 

The  age  of  the  codex  is  supposed  by  Hug  and  Tischendorf 
to  be  earlier  than  A.  It  belongs  in  all  probability  to  the  fifth 
century. 

Tischendorf  thinks  that  the  original  hand  corrected  very 
rarely.* 

The  first  corrector  or  reviser  went  over  all  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  He  wrote  very  elegantly,  without  putting 
accents  or  spirits,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  betray  a 
period  later  than  the  original  age  of  the  codex.  He  may  have 
belonged  to  Palestine,  or  Syria,  or  Asia  Minor.  The  peculi- 
arity of  the  text  he  had  was  its  intermediate  position  between 
the  Alexandrine  and  Constantinopolitan.  He  may  have  lived 
a  century  after  the  MS.  was  written. 

The  second  corrector  did  not  revise  all  the  New  Testament, 
but  only  such  parts  as  were  adapted  to  church  use.  He  was 
more  studious  of  the  useful  than  the  elegant.  His  writing  is 
inelegant,  unequal,  and  somewhat  negligent.  Cognate  letters 
are  interchanged  and  others  transposed.  His  hand  was  quick 
and  practised,  and  therefore  he  used  many  contractions.  Un- 
like his  predecessor,  he  mostly  drew  a  line  over  the  words  he 
disapproved  or  wished  to  be  omitted  in  the  public  service — 
sometimes  writing  above,  and  sometimes  in  the  margin,  what 
he  meant  to  be  substituted.  He  frequently  affixed  the  accents 
and  spirits,  but  more  in  the  text  than  in  his  notes.  The  spirit 
he  always  marks  in  the  same  manner,  so  that  he  appears  to 
have  known  only  the  aspet-.  In  punctuating  the  text,  he  very 
*  Prolegomena,  p.  15. 


284  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 

frequently  used  a  small  cross.  Hug  is  too  nice  in  distinguishing 
the  larger  and  smaller  cross,  as  if  the  former  were  put  at  the 
close  of  a  period  and  the  latter  at  a  smaller  pause,  such  as  the 
colon.  Other  signs  which  he  affixed  were  the  usual  ones  in 
copies  destined  for  ecclesiastical  use,  certain  musical  notes  to 
regulate  the  intonation  of  the  voice  in  chanting.  The  kind  of 
text  characteristic  of  this  second  corrector  is  the  Constantino- 
politan.  He  is  supposed  by  Tischendorf  to  have  belonged  to 
the  ninth  century  and  to  Constantinople.* 

Tischendorf  also  discovered  a  few  things  in  the  codex  from 
the  hand  of  a  third  corrector,  or  in  other  words  a  fourth  hand. 
But  they  are  so  few  as  not  to  be  worth  noticing.f 

In  the  thirteenth  century  the  old  writing  was  partly  washed 
out  with  a  sponge,  and  the  parchment  used  for  various  treatises 
of  Ephrem  translated  into  Greek. 

The  first  knowledge  of  the  ancient  writing  concealed  under 
the  works  of  Ephrem  is  due  to  Peter  Allix.  After  him  Boivin 
very  carefully  examined  the  codex,  and  communicated  various 
interesting  particulars  of  it  to  Lamy.  He  also  sent  extracts 
from  it  to  Kuster,  who  used  them  in  his  reprint  of  Mill's 
Greek  Testament.  But  the  person  who  has  the  greatest  merit 
in  collating  it  is  Wetstein,  who  spent  much  time  and  care  upon 
its  pages.  Griesbach  added  something  to  Wetstein's  labours 
upon  \t.\  Scholz  inspected  it,  but  cannot  be  said  to  have  done 
any  thing  towards  supplying  or  correcting  what  Wetstein  had 
produced. 

In  1834  Fleck  induced  Hase,  keeper  of  the  MSS.  in  the 
Bibliotheque  du  Roi,  to  allow  a  chemical  infusion  to  be  applied 
so  as  to  bring  out  the  ancient  characters.  Accordingly  the 
Giobertine  tincture  was  used  in  about  100  leaves.  By  this 
means  the  way  was  prepared  for  Fleck  to  make  a  more  accurate 
examination,  which  he  did  particularly  in  fifteen  leaves,  and 

*  Prolegomena,  p.  20.  t  Ibid,  p.  7. 

I  Symbolae  Oriticae,  vol.  i.  p.  3,  et  seq. 


DESCRIPTION    OF    THE    UNCIAL    MSS.  285 

gave  an  account  of  his  collation  in  tlie  Studien  mid  Kritiken 
for  1841.  But  it  would  appear  from  Tiscliendorf,  that  Fleck 
fell  into  many  egregious  blunders.*  Finally,  the  whole  text 
was  published  by  Tischendorf  in  1843^  to  whom  scholars 
owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  the  manner  in  which  he  has 
put  them  in  possession  of  the  readings  of  this  most  valuable 
MS.  Learned  Prolegomena  of  44  pages  are  prefixed ;  and  an 
appendix  is  subjoined,  giving  the  readings  of  the  second  and 
third  hand,  with  a  beautiful  fac-simile.  The  work  is  entitled, 
Codex  Ephraeini  Syri  Rescriptus  sive  fragmenta  Novi  Testamenti 
e  codice  Graeco  Parisiensi  celeberrimo  qidnti  ut  videtur  post 
Christum  secidi  eruit  atque  edtdit  Constantmus  Tischendorf^ 
Lipsiae  1843,  Ato. 

D.  Codex  Cantahrigiensis  or  Bezae.  This  MS.  in  large 
quarto  is  now  in  the  library  of  the  University  at  Cambridge. 
The  former  history  of  it  is  unknown.  How  it  came  into 
Beza's  hands  is  not  very  clear ;  neither  does  he  himself  speak 
definitely  of  the  way  he  got  it.  It  was  at  Lyons  in  a  monas- 
tery dedicated  to  St.  Lenaeus,  where  Beza  found  it  in  1562 ; 
but  we  do  not  know  whether  he  purchased  it,  or  if  it  was  given 
to  him.  In  1581  Beza  presented  it  to  the  University  of 
Cambridge.  In  consequence  of  the  obscurity  in  which  its 
history  is  involved,  critics  have  found  it  difficult  to  determine 
whether  j3  of  Stephens  be  this  MS.  or  a  copy  of  it.  Marsh 
has  discussed  the  question  very  fully,  and  is  inclined  to  the 
former  opinion. f 

The  IMS.  contains  the  four  gospels  and  Acts  of  the  apostles 
in  Greek  and  Latin  (the  old  Latin  version  prior  to  Jerome), 
arranged  in  parallel  columns.  The  uncial  letters  are  upright 
and  square ;  there  are  no  intervals  between  the  words,  no 
accents  or  marks  of  aspiration.  In  many  places  a  simple  dot 
appears,  separating  words  from  one  another ;  in  the  Latin  text 

*  Prolegomena  in  Cod.  &c.  pp.  37,  38. 
J  In  Michaelis's  Introduction,  vol.  ii.  p.  691,  et  seq. 


286  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

more  frequently  than  in  the  Greek.  We  find  also :  at  the 
beginning  of  Ammonian  sections  commonly  standing  a  little 
out  in  the  margin,  but  sometimes  in  the  middle  of  lines.  It  is 
stichometrically  written,  and  therefore  the  lines  are  very  unequal. 
The  Greek  characters  are  elegantly  formed ;  but  the  Latin  are 
not  so.  The  order  of  the  books  is  the  Latin  one,  Matthew, 
John,  Luke,  Mark,  Acts.  It  is  mutilated  in  various  places,  as 
in  Matt.  i.  1-20  ;  vi.  20— ix.  2 ;  xxvii.  2-12.  John  i.  16— 
iii.  26.  Acts  viii.  29— x.  14;  xxi.  2-10,  16-18;  xxii.  10-20; 
xxii.  29  to  the  end.  In  the  Latin  it  wants  Matt.  i.  1-12  ;  vi.  8 — 
viii.  27;  xxvi.  65 — xxvii.  2.  John  i.  1 — iii.  16.  Acts  viii. 
19— X.  4 ;  XX.  31— xxi.  7-11 ;  xxii.  2-10 ;  xxii.  20  to  the  end. 
Several  portions  both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  have  been  supplied 
by  later  hands,  some  apparently  in  the  ninth  century,  others 
in  the  tenth  or  after.  These  are  specified  by  Kipling*  and 
Tischendorf.j"  The  Euthalian  summaries  of  the  stichoi  are  not 
given  at  the  end.  The  Ammonian  sections  are  marked,  without 
the  references  to  the  Eusebian  canons.  Here  and  there  in  the 
margin  appear  also  liturgical  notes,  referring  to  the  beginning 
and  end  of  ecclesiastical  lessons.  We  also  meet  with  titles  to 
paragraphs  occasionally  in  the  margin  but  oftener  at  the  top  of 
the  page.  None  of  these  things,  not  even  the  Ammonian 
sections  are  a  prima  manu.  They  were  probably  added  by 
more  than  one  person  at  different  times,  and  shew  that  thougli 
the  MS.  at  first  was  not  designed  for  ecclesiastical  use,  it  was 
subsequently  adapted  to  that  object. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  aj)ostles  the  Euthalian  sections  do  not 
appear.  Bishop  Marsh  says  that  the  text  is  divided  into 
sections  by  the  first  word  of  each  being  so  written  as  to  have 
the  first  letter  of  it  standing  in  the  margin.  According  to  this, 
the  sections  are  very  numerous.  But  when  he  farther  affirms, 
that  wherever  a  Euthalian  section  commences,  a  new  section 

*  Praefat.  in  cod.  Theodor.  Bez.  Cantab,  p.  xxvi. 
t  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  60. 


DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  UNCIAL  MSS.  287 

begins  in  the  codex  Bezae,*  he  is  in  error,  and  is  consequently 
mistaken  in  making  these  small  sections  suhdivisicms  of  the 
Euthalian  sections.  We  doubt  whether  they  have  any  con- 
nexion with  the  Euthalian  sections.  Thus  at  chap.  vi.  8, 
where  a  Euthalian  section  commences,  there  is  no  minor  section. 
This  is  also  the  case  at  chap.  viii.  1.  And  at  chap.  xi.  1,  the 
Euthalian  section  begins  in  the  middle  of  a  line.  Thus  the 
commencement  of  the  Euthalian  sections  and  the  smaller  ones 
of  the  cod.  Bezae  sometimes  agrees  and  sometimes  differs. 
There  are  also  traces  of  ecclesiastical  lessons,  for  the  initial 
letters  of  such  lessons  have  crept  into  the  codex  in  some 
places. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  are  by  the 
same  hand,  as  Simon  long  ago  shewed.  Certain  letters  clearly 
prove  it.  The  calligraphist  seems  to  have  known  Greek  very 
imperfectly  as  well  as  Latin.  Unskilled  in  these  languages, 
says  Hug,  he  wrote  his  MS.  in  his  professional  capacity.f 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  codex  was  written  in 
Alexandria.  It  abounds  with  Alexandrine  forms  and  idioms, 
even  more  so  than  the  Vatican  MS.,  as  Kipling  has  pointed 
out.  But  the  existence  of  Alexandrine  forms  and  orthography 
is  not  conclusive  proof  of  the  Egyptian  origin  of  a  MS. 
Kather  would  the  accompaniment  of  the  Latin  version  point  to 
the  west  of  Europe.  According  to  Hug,  it  was  written  after 
the  time  of  Euthalius  and  before  the  Arabian  conquest,  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  fifth,  or  in  the  sixth  century.  The  latter  is 
the  more  probable  date. 

Various  circumstances  mentioned  by  Kipling  shew,  that  if 
the  MS.  was  not  intended  for  the  Latins,  it  was  at  least  in 
their  possession  for  a  while ;  for  a  Latin  hand  has  supplied  the 
Greek  text  in  various  places. 

It  was  once  thought  that  the  Greek  text  in  all  Greek-Latin 

*  Notes  to  Michaelis's  Introduction,  vol.  ii.  p.  71fi. 
t  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  246. 


288  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

MSS.  has  been  altered  from  the  Latin.  But  Hug  rightly 
observes,  that  the  very  opposite  may  be  satisfactorily  established 
by  this  MS.  The  Latin  has  been  accommodated  to  the  Greek, 
"  contrary  to  all  grammatical  rules  and  with  childish  scrupu- 
losity."* 

The  text  of  this  MS.  is  peculiar.  Its  interpolations  are 
numerous  and  considerable.  It  is  full  of  arbitrary  glosses  and 
mistakes,  especially  in  the  Acts.  In  this  respect  no  other  MS. 
can  be  compared  with  it.  Its  singularly  corrupt  text  in  con- 
nexion with  its  great  antiquity  is  a  curious  problem  which  can- 
not easily  be  solved.  Why  should  it  have  numerous  glosses 
and  additions  to  the  genuine  text,  many  of  which  are  found  in 
no  other  ancient  document  ?  And  yet  Bornemann  has  edited 
the  text  of  the  Acts,  and  exalts  it  above  the  text  of  all  other 
MSS.  His  volume  is  entitled,  ^^  Acta  apostohrum  a  Luca 
conscripta  ad  fidem  codicis  Cantahrigiensis  et  reliquorum  monu- 
mentorum  denuo  recensuit  et  interpretatus  est,  1848."  The  pre- 
face, consisting  of  32  pages,  contains  a  few  useful  things 
respecting  the  MS. ;  but  the  editor's  estimate  of  it  is  ridiculously 
perverse.  (See  pp.  6,  7.)  In  the  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf's 
second  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  the  production  of 
Bornemann  is  severely  criticised. 

In  1793  Kipling  published  the  text  of  the  codex  in  fac- 
simile, two  volumes  folio,  Cambridge,  with  a  preface  and 
appendix.  But  the  Prolegomena  shew  little  capacity  for 
criticism  or  acquaintance  with  what  had  been  recently  wnritten 
on  the  subject ;  and  the  inconvenience  of  the  "  Notae"  is  ap- 
parent. After  this,  critics  were  no  longer  dependent  on  the 
collations  of  it  which  had  been  made  by  Mill  and  Wetstein. 

D.  Cod.  Claromontanus.     This  parchment  codex  is  now  in 

the  Poyal  Library  at  Paris  (No.  107).     It  is  in  quarto  size  on 

fine  thin  vellum,  and  consists  of  533  leaves,  having  in  Greek 

and  Latin,  in  parallel  columns,  all  the  epistles  of  Paul  except  a 

*  Hug,  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  248. 


DESCRIPTION    OF   THE    UNCIAL    MSS.  289 

few  verses,  Romans  i.  1-7.  Romans  i.  27-30  both  Greek  and 
Latin  has  been  supplied  by  an  ancient  hand.  After  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans  come  those  to  the  Corinthians,  in  the  first  of 
which,  xiv.  13-22,  has  been  supplied  by  an  ancient  hand  in  the 
Greek,  and  xiv.  8-18  is  wanting  in  the  Latin.  The  epistles  to 
the  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philippians,  Thessa- 
lonians,  Timothy,  Titus,  Philemon,  and  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
follow,  the  Latin  of  which  last  is  deficient  in  xiii.  21-23. 

The  writing  is  continuous  throughout  both  in  the  Greek 
and  Latin  texts.  Initial  letters  at  the  commencement  of  books 
as  well  as  of  sections  are  somewhat  larger  than  the  rest.  As 
to  the  ancient  character  used  by  the  first  hand,  it  approaches  to 
that  used  in  the  cod.  Vaticanus  and  cod.  Alexandrinus,  present- 
ing square  and  round  forms.  The  letter  n  is  written  so  as  not 
to  have  the  cross  stroke  at  the  top  projecting  beyond  the  sides. 
I  and  T  where  they  are  to  be  pronounced  singly  have  two 
points  over  them,  as  in  some  other  ancient  MSS. 

The  size  of  the  writing  is  somewhat  larger  than  that  in 
cod.  Vaticanus,  and  very  near  to  that  found  in  the  codd.  Eph- 
raemi  and  Cantabrigiensis.  And  the  whole  manner  of  it  is 
simple,  elegant,  and  ancient. 

In  regard  to  accents  and  spirits,  they  belong  to  the  ancient 
correctors  of  the  MS.  None  of  them  proceeded  from  the  first 
hand,  except  perhaps  the  apostrophe  in  some  cases,  such  as 
er'au-ous,  though  apostrophes  in  most  instances  must  have  been 
added  by  the  con-ector. 

The  Latin  character  is  also  uncial,  and  is  very  like  that 
found  in  the  cod.  Bezae,  especially  in  the  letters  d  and  h. 

Abbreviations  are  used,  but  only  such  as  savour  of  remote 
antiquity,  ex.  gr.  ©c  IC  kg  iThp  mhp,  &c.  In  Latin  ds  dms 
IHS  SPS,  &c. 

There  are  no  marks  of  interpunction ;  but  the  codex  is 
written  stichometrically,  with  twenty-one  lines  in  every  page 

VOL.    II.  u 


290  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM, 

except  two.  The  Greek  and  Latin  were  written  at  the  same 
time,  and  by  the  same  hand. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  added 
by  a  later  hand.  It  was  certainly  added  to  the  MS.,  because 
the  exemplar  whence  the  epistles  were  copied  had  not  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  but  the  hand  is  either  the  same,  which 
is  most  probable,  or  else  a  contemporary  one.     It  is  not  later. 

The  stichometry  of  the  MS.  shews  that  it  was  written 
after  A.  d.  462,  when  stichometry  was  first  applied  by  Eutha- 
lius  to  the  Pauline  epistles.  Tischendorf  assigns  the  age  of  it 
to  the  sixth  century,*  an  opinion  which  may  be  safely  ac- 
quiesced in  by  other  critics.  According  to  the  same  scholar, 
the  text  is  much  more  ancient  than  the  MS.  itself.  The  Greek 
text  resembles  that  peculiar  conformation  which  the  ancient 
Latin  interpreter  had  before  him.  And  the  Latin  text  is  that 
ancient  one  which  was  circulated  very  early  in  northern 
Africa.  The  Latin  of  this  codex  is  a  better  representative  of 
the  most  ancient  African  interpretation  in  Paul's  epistles  than 
is  to  be  found  in  any  other  exemplar. 

With  respect  to  the  country  where  it  was  written,  Tischen- 
dorf thinks  that  it  was  Africa.  This  is  favoured  by  the  Alex- 
andrine forms  of  the  text,  such  as  occur  in  A.  B.  C.  D.  and 
other  MSS.,  ex.  gr.  Xtiim-^itui,  rr^oaXyj/x-^l/ic,  avs'TriXrj/j.'XTOi,  iViv-^afJ.iv, 
TsvTii,  'TTgo'Trivipdyjvai,  guvTradriGai,  x.  r.  X.  But  such  phenomena  by 
no  means  prove  that  Africa  was  its  birth-place.  The  Latin 
version  favours  the  west  of  Europe.  The  scribe  was  well 
acquainted  with  Greek,  and  therefore  very  few  mistakes  are 
found  in  this  text.  But  he  was  ignorant  of  Latin,  and  hence 
he  has  committed  many  blunders. 

So  many  correctors  have  meddled  with   the  text  of  this 

codex  that  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  distinguish  what 

belongs  to  each.     In  the  first  place,  the  transcriber  himself 

made  many  changes  and  corrections.     The  first  corrector  is 

*  Prolegomena  in  cod.  Claromont. 


DESCRIPTION   OF   THE    UNCIAL    MSS.  291 

believed  by  Tischendorf  to  have  been  a  monk  from  Sinai  or 
some  Greek  monastery  of  the  neighbouring  parts ;  and  to  have 
lived  in  the  seventh  centmy.  The  nature  of  his  corrections 
is  described  by  the  same  scholar.  He  may  be  marked  D**, 
and  his  revision  comprehended  the  entire  Greek  text.  He 
was  followed  by  D***^  who  corrected  only  a  few  places  both  in 
the  Greek  and  Latin.  D**c  changed  a  very  few  places.  But 
the  fourth  corrector  D***  went  through  the  whole  MS.,  put 
accents  and  spirits  into  it,  altered  the  orthography,  and  en- 
deavoured to  introduce  in  a  measure  another  recension  into  the 
text.  He  corrected  the  text  in  upwards  of  two  thousand 
places,  using  that  oblong  uncial  character  which  was  employed 
after  the  seventh  century.  Tischendorf  thinks  that  he 
belonged  to  the  ninth  century,  and  gives  many  examples  of  his 
corrections,  in  the  Prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  the  codex. 
Besides  the  persons  just  referred  to,  the  same  critic  distin- 
guishes D'=,  D***t',  J)**,  d**%  d***,  D"°^-. 

The  name  of  this  MS.,  Glaromontanus,  which  it  first  re- 
ceived from  Beza,  has  given  rise  to  many  conjectures.  He 
says  that  it  was  found  in  the  Clermont  monastery,  whence  it 
came  into  his  hands.  Afterwards  it  was  brought  to  Paris,  and 
belonged  to  Claudius  Puteanus.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  thirty-five  leaves  were  cut  out  of  it  and 
stolen  by  John  Aymon.  But  these  were  afterwards  sent 
back,  one  from  Holland  by  Stosel  who  had  purchased  it,  and 
thirty-four  by  the  Earl  of  Oxford. 

The  codex  was  first  used  by  Beza.  It  was  afterwards  ex- 
amined by  John  Morin.  Readings  of  it  were  given  by  Wal- 
ton in  his  Polyglott,  and  by  Curcellaeus.  It  was  first  collated 
with  great  labour  and  diligence  by  Wetstein  in  1715  and 
1716.  Griesbach  examined  it  in  several  places,  and  corrected 
a  few  of  Wetstein's  readings.*  The  whole  has  been  published, 
with  a  fac-simile  specimen,  by  Tischendorf,  in  a  splendidly 
*  Symbolae  Criticae,  vol.  ii.  p.  31,  et  seq. 


292  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

printed  large  quarto  volume,  with  copious  prolegomena,  and  a 
most  useful  appendix,  giving  the  various  corrections.  The 
Latin  text  had  been  published  before  by  Sabatier,  but  very 
incorrectly,  as  would  appear  from  Tischendorf's  remarks. 
The  title  of  Tischendorf's  work  is  "  Codex  Claromontamis  sive 
Epistidae  Pauli  omnes  Graece  et  Latine  ex  codice  Parisiensi 
celeherrimo  nomine  Claromontani ^pJerumque  dicto,  sexti  ut  mdetxir 
post  Christum  seculi  nunc  primum  edidit  Constantinus  Tischen- 
dorf^  Lipsiae,  1852." 

E.  Cod.  Basileensis  K.  iv.  35,  formerly  B.  vi.  21,  a  MS.  of 
the  four  gospels  in  the  public  library  at  Basel.  The  codex  is 
deficient  in  some  parts — in  Luke  iii.  4-15,  xxiv.  47  to  the  end 
of  the  gospels.  Luke  i.  69 — ii.  4 ;  xii.  58 — xiii.  12  ;  xv.  8-20, 
have  been  affixed  by  a  later  hand  and  in  small  letters. 

The  text  is  written  in  large,  beautiful,  uncial  characters, 
certain  letters  C€O0  being  wholly  round.  It  has  also  a 
very  simple  system  of  interpunction,  a  dot  being  placed  to  de- 
note different  pauses.  There  are  accents  and  marks  of  aspi- 
ration. The  text  is  divided  into  small  sections  as  in  A.  and 
C.  the  initial  letter  of  each  standing  out  in  the  margin. 

But  several  things  have  been  added  to  the  original  MS. 
There  are  compressed  and  lengthened  letters  not  merely  at  the 
end  of  a  line  where  there  was  little  room,  but  in  the  summaries 
of  the  chapters  or  rirXoi  prefixed  to  the  gospels,  in  the  de- 
signations of  the  Ammonian  sections,  in  the  references  to  other 
evangelists  in  the  lower  margin,  in  the  designations  of  the 
festivals,  and  in  certain  formulae  at  the  beginning  of  church 
lessons  marked  on  the  upper  margin.  These  additions  point 
to  the  ninth  century ;  and  therefore  the  MS.  itself  should 
be  placed  in  the  eighth. 

There  is  evidence  in  the  codex  that  it  was  for  a  long  time 
in  Constantinople  or  the  neighbourhood.  Hug  produces  two 
proofs  which  are  quite  sufficient.*  It  was  used  as  a  church- 
*  Einleit.  vol.  i.  pp.  261,  262. 


DESCRIPTION    OF   THE    UNCIAL   MSS.  293 

MS.  in  Constantinople;  and  therefore  the  designations  of 
church  lessons  are  by  the  first  hand.  As  to  the  rirXot^  the 
Ammonian  sections,  the  notation  of  sacred  festivals,  they  were 
put  by  a  later  hand. 

Wetstein  thinks  that  the  words  were  dictated  to  the 
copyist,  who  was  by  no  means  skilled  in  what  he  wrote,  and 
therefore  he  frequently  confounded  s  and  ai ;  n,  /,  and  rj ; 
u  and  0/  01  and  u.  Hence  he  has  -/.Xad/xog  for  xXaudfiog. 
The  nature  of  the  text  is  what  is  called  Byzantine  or  Con- 
stantinopolitan.  Hence  it  agrees  very  often  with  F.  G.  H. 
It  will  be  understood  that  it  is  a  very  early  specimen  of  the 
Byzantine  class  ;  and  its  value  is  considerable,  as  Mill  rightly 
judged. 

The  codex  was  presented  by  Cardinal  Johannes  de  Ragusio 
in  the  fifteenth  century  to  a  monastery  in  Basel,  whence  it  was 
transferred  to  the  public  library  of  the  same  city  in  1559. 
Mill  thought  that  Erasmus  used  it  in  preparing  his  Greek 
Testament ;  but  Wetstein  proved  the  contrary.  The  mistake 
arose  from  the  fact  that  Erasmus  used  another  Basel  MS.  with 
which  this  one  has  many  readings  in  common.  It  has  often 
been  collated,  especially  by  Wetstein  and  Tischendorf,  by  the 
latter  in  1843,  and  by  Tregelles  in  1846. 

E.  God.  Laudianus  3.  This  is  a  Greek-Latin  manuscript 
of  the  Acts  of  the  apostles.  The  Latin  version,  which  is  the 
Ante-Hieronymian,  precedes  the  Greek  text  on  each  page, 
occupying  as  it  does  the  left-hand  column,  while  the  Greek 
occupies  the  right.  This  arrangement  is  unusual.  The 
characters  are  uncial,  square,  large,  heavy,  and  rough.  Both 
columns  are  placed  stichometrically,  only  one  word  being 
commonly  written  in  a  line,  seldom  two  or  three  ;  and  each 
Latin  word  is  always  opposite  to  the  Greek  word.  Hence  it 
has  been  supposed  that  the  MS.  was  made  for  the  use  of  a 
person  who  was  not  skilled  in  both  languages ;  and  as  the 
Latin  occupies  the  first  column  that  it  was  the  kno\Yn  Ian- 


294  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

guage,  the  other  not  being  well  known  ;  a  fact  pointing  to 
the  west  of  Europe. 

The  Euthalian  chapters  are  marked  by  larger  initial  letters 
running  out  into  the  margin.  The  accents  and  enumeration 
of  stichoi  at  the  end  are  wanting. 

There  is  a  chasm  from  xxvi.  29  to  xxviii.  26. 

Internal  evidence  shews  the  Alexandrine  origin  of  the  text. 
It  has  Alexandrine  forms  and  an  Alexandrine  orthography. 
Thus  we  meet  with  H'ra^  f/o-ag,  nvav,  ai/s/Xars,  s^s/Xaro,  ivitXa.ro, 
Tju^av,  i^i^XXaro,  diifjjagriiParo,  iXi^fi-^l/iv.  Hencc  the  opinion  of 
Woide  that  it  was  made  in  the  east  is  plausible.*  But  the 
accompanying  Latin  version,  and  especially  the  place  it  occu- 
pies, points  to  the  west  of  Europe  in  preference  to  Egypt. 
We  agree  with  those  who  place  it  in  the  sixth  century  rather 
than  the  seventh,  though  it  should  be  put  towards  the  end  of 
the  former. 

The  text  is  very  valuable,  not  only  in  itself,  but  because  it 
effectually  disposes  of  the  charge  of  Latinising  once  brought 
against  Greek-Latin  MSS.  generally. 

At  the  end  of  the  codex,  on  the  last  leaf,  is  the  edict  of  a 
Sardinian  prince  Flavins  Pancratius,  which  Hug  thinks  must 
certainly  contain  some  date  or  designation  of  time.f  But  he 
is  mistaken,  for  Wetstein  gave  the  whole,  and  there  is  no  date. 
The  same  critic  shews  that  Justinian  first  appointed  Duces 
Sardiniae  in  534  A.D.,  who  ceased  entirely  after  749  A.D. 
Thus  the  codex  seems  to  have  been  in  Sardinia  in  the  seventh 
or  eighth  century.  Some  have  thought  that  it  was  loritten 
there  in  the  seventh  century.  But  it  rather  appears  to  have 
been  brought  from  another  country. 

It  was  observed  by  Mill  that  it  agrees  wonderfully 
(mirifice)  with  that  codex  of  the  Acts  after  which  the  vene- 
rable Bede  wrote  his  Retractationes  on  the  Acts  of  the  apostles. 
But  he  thought  our  MS.  was  written  after  the  time  of  Bede. 
*  Notitia  cod.  Alexand.  ed.  Spohn,  p.  L51.  f  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  240. 


DESCRIPTION    OF   THE    UNCIAL   MSS.  295 

Wetstein  endeavoured  to  shew  that  it  was  the  very  codex 
which  Bede  employed  ;*  an  opinion  which  Woide  confirmed 
by  an  additional  array  of  passages  amounting  to  32.J'  In 
opposition  to  this  opinion  however,  Michaelis  quotes  Bede's 
own  wordsj  in  which  he  represents  the  Greek  readings  as  being 
different  from  the  Latin  in  some  places,  and  expresses  an  un- 
certain conjecture  that  similar  translations  might  afterwards  be 
found  in  the  Latin,  without  naming  the  Latin  of  the  codex  it- 
self.J     Yet  the  weight  of  evidence  is  in  favour  of  the  identity. 

The  MS.  was  printed  both  in  Greek  and  Latin  by 
Hearne  at  Oxford,  where  the  ]\IS.  itself  is  deposited,  having 
been  presented  by  Archbishop  Laud  in  1715,  8vo.  Critics 
complain  of  the  great  rarity  of  this  impression.  Sabatier 
printed  the  Latin  alone. 

E.  Cod.  Sangermanensis  of  the  Pauline  epistles.  This  is 
a  Greek-Latin  codex  of  Paul's  epistles,  with  accents  and  marks 
of  aspiration  accompanying  the  uncial  Greek  letters.  It  is 
defective  in  Romans  viii.  21-33,  xi.  15-25  ;  1  Timothy  i.  1 — 
vi.  15 ;  Heb.  xii.  8  to  the  end. 

It  has  been  correctly  supposed  that  this  MS.  is  a  copy  of 
the  cod.  Claromontanns.  And  the  copy  is  by  no  means  accu- 
rate. It  has  many  blunders  and  ridiculous  readings  arising 
from  jumbling  together  the  corrections  in  D.  which  proceeded 
from  several  hands.  This  has  been  amply  shewn  by  Wet- 
stein, §  and  Griesbach.  ||  Semler^  however  assented  to  it  only 
in  part ;  and  Marsh,**  following  him,  termed  it  a  sort  of  codex 
eclecticus,  in  making  which  the  Clermont  MS.  was  priyicipally 
but  not  at  all  times  consulted.  But  internal  evidence  shews 
that  the  writer  scarcely  has  a  claim  to  the  character  of  a  man 

*  Nov.  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  450.     f  Notitiacod.  Alexandr.  p.  156,  et  sec[. 

+  Introduction  to  the  New  Test.  vol.  ii.  p.  273. 

§  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  vol.  ii.  pp.  7,  8. 

II  Symbolae  criticae,  vol.  ii.  p.  77,  et  seq. 

^  Hermeneutische  Vorbereitung,  vol.  iv.  pp.  63-65. 

**  Notes  to  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  p.  785. 


296  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

who  purposed  to  make  a  cod.  edecticus.  He  was  grossly  igno- 
rant. Thus  the  MS.  has  in  Eomans  iv.  25,  diTiaiuaivriv ;  in  2  Cor. 
i.  5,  TO  TadyjfJtiara  /  in  Heb.  X.  33,  vidi^ofj^svohar^i^o/jLiwi.  The 
copyist  sometimes  followed  the  first  reading  of  D.,  sometimes 
the  third,  sometimes  two  were  jumbled  together,  sometimes  he 
blundered  himself.  The  Latin  as  well  as  the  Greek  has  been 
copied  from  the  Clermont  codex  ;  but  it  has  been  altered  after 
another  text  agreeing  for  the  most  part  with  the  Hieronymian.* 
Montfaucon  f  and  BlanchiuiJ  have  both  given  fac-similes. 

The  age  of  the  MS.  cannot  be  determined.  Probably  it 
should  not  be  placed  higher  than  the  tenth  century.  Mill  first 
procured  extracts  from  it ;  but  Wetstein's  collation  is  thought 
by  Tischendorf  to  be  the  best.  Muralt  has  recently  endea- 
voured to  vindicate  a  higher  place  for  the  codex,  and  has  given 
extracts  from  it.§  Tischendorf  however  affirms  that  his  ex- 
tracts abound  with  mistakes.! 

The  name  Sangermanensis  is  derived  from  the  monastery 
of  St.  Germain  des  Prez  in  Paris,  where  it  formerly  was.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  present  century  it  was  purchased  by  a 
Russian  nobleman  and  taken  to  Petersburgli,  where  it  was  seen 
by  Matthaei  in  1805,  and  has  ever  since  lain.  Hence  the 
story  about  its  being  stolen  from  Paris  by  some  Russian 
soldier  during  the  visit  of  the  Muscovites  to  Paris,  on  Napoleon's 
downfall,  is  ridiculously  false. 

F.  Codex  Boreeli.  This  codex  contains  the  four  gospels, 
but  many  leaves  of  it  have  perished.  In  the  time  of  Wetstein 
it  began  with  Matt,  vii,  6 — viii.  34,  and  ended  with  John  xiii. 
34.     It  has  many  chasms  now,  several  of  which  did  not  exist 

*  See  Tischentlorf's  cod.  Claromontanus,  Prolegomena,  pp.  25,  26. 

t  Palaeogr.  Graeca,  p.  218. 

t  Evangeliarium  Quadruplex,  vol.  i.  plates  to  p.  533. 

§  In  his  Catalogiis  Codicum  Bibliothecae  Imperialis  publicae  Grae- 

corum  et  Latinorum.     Fasciculus  primus,  p.  3,  et  seq. 

II  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  72. 


DESCRIPTION    OF   THE    UNCIAL    MSS.  297 

in  Wetstein's  day.  Thus  in  Luke  alone  there  are  24  chasms 
of  verses  here  and  there.  Two  hundred  and  four  leaves,  with 
thirteen  fragments  of  others,  are  all  that  now  remain  of  the 
codex.  It  was  formerly  in  the  possession  of  John  Boreel, 
Dutch  ambassador  at  London  in  the  time  of  James  the  First, 
whence  its  name ;  and  is  now  in  the  public  library  at  Utrecht. 
Wetstein  procured  various  readings  of  it  for  his  edition,  ex- 
tending only  however  from  the  commencement  at  that  time 
(Matt.  vii.  6)  to  Luke  xi.  Professor  Heringa  wrote  a  disputa- 
tion upon  it  which  was  published  by  Vinke  in  1843,  and  sup- 
plies the  place  of  an  edition.  Both  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles 
compared  it  with  the  MS.  collation  of  Heringa  since  1840. 
The  text  appears  to  be  what  Griesbach  terms  Constantinopo- 
litan ;  and  the  MS.  belongs  to  the  ninth  century. 

F''.  Cod.  Coislinianus.  This  letter  F.  was  applied  by 
Wetstein  to  a  fragment  of  the  New  Testament  written  in  the 
scholia  of  Cod.  Coislinianus  1,  a  MS.  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Because  that  critic  found  Acts  ix.  24,  25  written  by  the  same 
hand  which  Avrote  the  MS.  itself,  he  noted  the  passage  by  F. 
F''.  therefore  does  not  designate  a  MS.  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  1842  Tischendorf  examining  the  codex  again,  and  especially 
the  scholia,  found  twenty  passages  of  the  gospels.  Acts,  and 
epistles,  viz.  Matt.  v.  48  ;  xii.  48 ;  xxvii.  25.  Luke  i.  42 ; 
ii.  24 ;  xxiii.  21.  John  v.  35  ;  vi.  53,  55.  Acts  iv.  33,  34  ; 
X.  13,  15  ;  xxii.  22.  1  Corinth,  vii.  39  ;  xi.  29.  2  Corinth, 
iii.  13;  ix.  7;  xi.  33.  Gal.  iv.  21,  22.  CoL  ii.  16,  17. 
Heb.  X.  26.  These  fragments  have  been  published  and  illus- 
trated by  the  same  indefatigable  critic,  in  his  Monumenta  Sacra 
inedita,  p.  403.  They  were  written  in  the  seventh  century. 
The  MS.,  so  called  from  Coislin  bishop  of  Metz,  now  in  the 
Benedictine  Library  of  St.  Germain  des  Prez,  is  written  in 
the  uncial  characters,  Avith  accents  and  marks  of  aspiration, 
which  are  omitted  in  some  places.* 
*  See  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf's  Monumenta  inedita,  p.  2-1,  et  scq. 


298  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

F.  God.  Augiensis,  a  Greek-Latin  MS.  of  Paul's  epistles, 
written  in  uncial  letters  and  without  accents.  The  letters  are 
not  written  continuously,  for  there  are  both  intervals  between 
the  words  and  a  dot  at  the  end  of  each.  The  words  ;^g/(rroj 
and  ln(^o'jg  are  not  abbreviated  as  in  the  common  MSS.  XC 
and  ic ;  but  XPC  and  IHC,  as  in  D.  or  the  Cambridge  MS. 
The  Latin  and  Greek  occupy  columns  on  the  same  page,  first 
the  Latin,  then  the  Greek.  The  Latin  version  can  scarcely  be 
called  either  the  old  Latin  or  the  Hieronymian,  since  it  is 
patched  and  mended  so  as  to  be  a  mixture  of  both  texts.  It  is 
written  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  cursive  hand.  The  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  wanting  in  the  Greek,  but  not  in  the  Latin.  The 
codex  begins  with  Romans  iii.  19,  and  has  various  chasms. 

The  age  of  this  MS.  is  determined  by  a  Latin  appendix  to 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  written  "priTna  manu  and  taken  from 
Rhaban  Maurus.  Hence  it  cannot  be  dated  earlier  than  the 
last  half  of  the  ninth  century.  The  codex  in  question  was 
hastily  collated  by  Wetstein.  Its  various  readings  were  also 
transferred  by  Bentley  into  an  Oxford  copy,  in  1675.  In 
1842  it  was  accurately  collated  by  Tischendorf.  It  was  also 
collated  by  Tregelles. 

The  appellation  Augiensis  is  taken  from  the  monastery  of 
Augia  Major  at  Rheinau  in  Switzerland,  where  the  MS.  once 
was.  After  passing  through  several  hands  it  was  purchased 
by  Bentley  in  1718,  and  is  now  in  the  library  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge,  all  his  MSS.  having  been  deposited  there 
in  1787  after  the  death  of  the  younger  Bentley. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was  written  in  the  west  of 
Europe,  or  by  some  western  Christian,  because  the  Latin  pre- 
cedes the  Greek  column,  and  ihe,  Anglo- Saxon  formation  of  the 
Latin  letters  is  used.  It  is  not  improbable  that  it  was  made 
in  Switzerland  by  a  native  of  Ireland  or  Scotland,  from  which 
countries  numerous  emigrants  repaired  to  Germany,  and  founded 
there   monastic    institutions    and    abbeys.      Most    of    these 


DESCRIPTION   OF   THE    UNCIAL   MSS.  299 

foreigners  were  educated  men,  and  had  some  knowledge  of  the 
Greek  language. 

An  affinity  between  this  codex  and  G.  (Boernerianus)  has 
always  attracted  notice.  In  the  great  majority  of  their  readings 
they  coincide.  But  in  a  few  of  each  epistle  they  differ.  In 
G.  there  is  a  vacant  space  after  Eomans  xiv.  23,  which  is 
not  in  F.  In  G.  at  the  end  of  the  epistle  to  Philemon  are 
written  the  words  t^oc  Xaoubay.risag  a^yjTc/.!  stistoX'^,  which  are  not 
in  F.  In  G.  the  Latin  version  is  interlinear ;  in  F.  in  parallel 
columns.  In  G.  the  Latin  version  of  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews is  wanting  as  well  as  the  Greek  original ;  in  F.  it  is 
present.  But  notwithstanding  these  differences,  the  coinci- 
dences in  readings,  and  in  mistakes  too,  are  very  great.  The 
chasms  in  the  Greek  of  both  are  also  the  same.  To  explain 
their  affinity,  it  has  been  supposed  that  F.  was  copied  from  G. 
or  vice  versa.  More  probable  is  it  that  both  were  transcribed 
from  one  and  the  same  exemplar  Avhich  had  received  different 
corrections.  The  same  age  and  country  must  be  assigned 
to  both. 

G.  Cod.  Seideln.  This  is  a  MS.  of  the  four  gospels  with 
various  chasms.  Matthew's  gospel  begins  with  vi.  6,  and 
there  are  wanting  vii.  25 — viii.  9  ;  viii.  23 — ix.  2  ;  xxviii.  18 
— Mark  i.  13;  xiv.  19-25.  Luke  i.  1-13;  v.  4 — vii.  3  ;  viii. 
46 — ix.  5 ;  xii.  27-51 ;  xxiv.  41 — to  the  end.  John  xviii. 
5-19;  xix.  4-27.  Some  of  these  parts  are  supplied  in  the 
cursive  character  by  later  hands.  The  MS.  is  in  4to,  written 
in  uncial  letters,  but  of  the  oblong  kind  usual  in  the  tenth 
century.  The  subscriptions  at  the  end  of  the  gospels  are  in 
the  small  character.  It  lias  accents  and  marks  of  aspiration 
a  prima  manu.  According  to  Griesbach  it  is  hardly  older  than 
the  twelfth  century.*  Wolf  placed  it  in  the  eighth  ;  Scholz  in 
the  eleventh.  Wolf  collated  it  and  published  the  extracts  in 
the  third  volume  of  his  Anecdota  Graeca,  p.  48,  et  seq.  After 
*  Symbolae  Criticae,  vol.  i.  p.  65. 


300  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

him  Griesbach  supplied  a  few  readings.  It  was  subsequently 
collated  by  Tischendorf  in  1 842,  and  by  Tregelles.  The  text 
is  of  the  Constantinopolitan  type. 

Andrew  Erasmus  Seidel  brought  it  from  the  east,  from 
whom  it  is  commonly  called  SeideUi.  It  was  afterwards  pur- 
chased by  La  Croze  and  presented  to  Wolf,  who  is  said  to 
have  sent  it  to  Bentley.  At  present  it  is  in  the  British 
Museum,  among  the  codd.  Harleianos^  numbered  5684. 

G.  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles,  J.  in  the  Pauline. 
This  is  a  MS.  in  the  Angelicau  Library  at  Eome,  where  it  is 
marked  A.  2.  15,  formerly  Cardinal  Passionei's.  It  is  imper- 
fect in  the  Acts  till  viii.  10,  and  in  Paul's  epistles  from  Heb. 
xiii.  10  to  the  end.  Blanchini  and  Birch  examined  it  in  a  few 
places.  Scholz  collated  the  entire  in  1820,  and  Fleck  in  1833. 
It  was  most  accurately  collated  by  Tischendorf  in  1843,  and 
also  by  Tregelles,  who  noticed  many  errors  in  Scholz's  extracts. 
Blanchini  attributes  it  to  the  seventh  or  eighth  century ;  Tisch- 
endorf to  the  nintli.  The  former  gave  a  fac-simile  specimen 
of  it.* 

G.  in  the  Pauline  epistles,  cod.  Boernertanus.  This  is  a 
Greek-Latin  MS.  containing  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul,  that  to 
the  Hebrews  being  absent  both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin.  The 
Latin  version  can  scarcely  be  called  the  old  Latin  or  the 
Hieronymian,  for  it  is  a  patchwork  of  both  Avith  many  blunders. 
It  is  interlined  between  the  Greek,  being  written  over  the 
words  of  which  it  is  the  translation.  Besides  the  chasms  which 
it  has  in  common  with  F.,  viz.  1  Cor.  iii.  8-16  ;  vi.  7-14. 
Colos.  ii.  1-8.  Philemon  21  to  the  end;  it  wants  Komans  i. 
1-5  ;  ii.  16-25.  Its  similarities  and  differences  in  relation  to 
F.  have  been  already  noticed.  There  is  little  doubt  from  the 
uniformity  of  the  writing  and  colour  of  the  ink  that  the  Latin 
and  Greek  proceeded  from  the  same  hand.  The  Greek  char- 
acters are  uncial,  but  of  a  peculiar  form.  The  Latin  is  written 
*  Evangeliarium  Quaclruplex,  vol.  i.  at  plix. 


DESCRIPTION    OF   THE    UNCIAL   MSS.  301 

in  cursive  Anglo-Saxon.  According  to  Hug,  the  text  is  from 
a  stichometrical  copy,  though  it  is  continuous,  the  stichoi  not 
being  separated.  Instead  of  this,  the  transcriber  marked  the 
beginning  of  each  of  them  by  an  initial  letter.  The  copyist 
also  added  marks  of  punctuation ;  but  he  omitted  the  accents. 
The  copy  from  which  the  codex  was  taken  appears  to  have 
been  written  in  Alexandria.  This  is  shewn  by  the  idioms  that 
occur,  T^offu'ffoXri/Jj'^ia,  doffsojg  xai  XyifM-\\/scijc,  /xiraXrj/jj'^ig,  ■Tr^oXrjf^-^ig, 
ai/7-/X7i/a,'\|//s,  &C.  siXaro,  ysyovav,  srs'Tsffai',  i^sXdars.  Like  Cod, 
F.  the  MS.  itself  seems  to  have  been  written  in  the  west,  or 
by  a  native  of  the  west.  It  has  been  referred  to  France 
or  Germany;  but  it  may  belong  as  well  to  Switzerland. 
Kuster  refers  it  to  Britain ;  Doederlein  to  Ireland.  More  likely 
is  it  to  have  been  made  by  a  native  of  Ireland  or  Scotland  who 
had  emigrated  to  the  continent  of  Europe,  and  was  connected 
with  some  monastery  there.  On  the  margin  there  is  fre- 
quently noted  by  the  first  hand  contra  yoddidaff-AaXxov,  contra 
Graecos.  Gottschalk  disputed  about  predestination  in  the  ninth 
century;  and  in  the  same  century  the  Greeks  and  Latins 
separated.  Hence  the  MS.  appears  to  belong  to  the  ninth 
century. 

Kuster  complains  of  the  unskilfulness  and  ignorance  of  the 
scribe,  and  with  reason,  though  some  of  the  proofs  he  adduces 
are  totally  erroneous.  *  The  copyist  had  certainly  little 
acquaintance  with  Greek.  He  also  unwarrantably  corrected 
the  Greek  according  to  the  Latin  in  some  places.  Notes  are 
found  in  the  margin  which  are  Irish. 

There  is  a  transcript  of  this  MS.  in  the  library  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge,  among  the  MSS.  left  by  Bentley.  It  must 
have  been  intended  for  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament. 
The  text  was  first  published  by  Matthaei  at  Meissen,  1791 
4to,  with  a  fac-simile  specimen.  The  codex  formerly  belonged 
*  Praefatio  to  Reprint  of  Mill's  Greek  Test. 


302  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

to  Professor  Boerner  of  Leipzig,  and  therefore  its  name  Boer- 
nerianus.     It  is  now  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Dresden. 

H.  SeideUi  of  the  four  gospels,  in  quarto,  in  uncial  letters. 
This  MS.,  as  well  as  G.,  was  brought  from  the  east  by  Seidel. 
The  text  is  mutilated  in  many  places.  It  begins  with  Matt. 
XV.  30,  and  was  collated  by  Wolf,  who  published  the  extracts 
in  the  third  volume  of  his  Anecdota  Oraeca.  It  has  also  been 
collated  by  Tregelles  for  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
who  says  that  Wolf's  is  "  both  very  defective  and  very  incor- 
rect." *  Like  G.,  it  was  purchased  by  La  Croze  and  given  to 
Wolf,  whence  it  got  into  the  public  library  at  Hamburgh. 
Scholz  places  it  in  the  eleventh  century.  When  he  says  that 
the  text  agrees  with  the  Constantinopolitan  recension,  though 
it  has  many  readings  which  are  common  to  the  Alexandrine, 
no  idea  of  the  real  form  of  the  text  is  conveyed.  Among 
Bentley's  papers  in  the  library  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge, 
fragments  of  these  two  MSS.,  G.  and  H.,  have  been  found  by 
Tregelles,  which  Wolf  himself  cut  out  and  sent  to  Bentley. 
He  mutilated  his  own  MSS. ! 

H.  Cod.  Mutinensis  of  the  Acts  of  the  apostles.  This  MS.  is 
in  folio  in  uncial  letters.  It  is  defective  at  the  beginning  from 
i.  1 — V.  27.  It  also  wants  ix.  39 — x.  19  ;  xiii.  36 — xiv.  3. 
From  xajisidsv  in  xxvii.  4  to  the  end  of  the  Acts  is  supplied 
in  uncial  letters  by  a  hand  of  the  eleventh  century.  The  other 
parts  are  also  supplied,  but  by  a  recent  hand  of  the  fifteenth  or 
sixteenth  century.  The  MS.  contains  the  Catholic  and  Pauline 
epistles  too,  but  in  the  cursive  character  (marked  179).  Ac- 
cording to  Scholz  and  Tischendorf  it  was  written  in  the  ninth 
century.  It  is  deposited  in  the  public  library  of  Modena,  and 
was  first  collated  by  Scholz ;  afterwards,  far  more  accurately  by 
Tregelles  and  Tischendorf. 

H.  of  the  Pauline  epistles  Coislinianus.  This  MS.  is  in 
*  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature  for  October  1850,  p.  451. 


DESCRIPTION   OF   THE    UNCIAL  MSS.  303 

4to,  Avritten  in  large,  square  uncial  characters  of  ancient  form. 
It  is  furnished  with  accents  and  marks  of  aspiration,  and  had 
the  Euthalian  subscriptions.  The  words  are  stichometrically 
divided.  All  that  remains  of  the  MS.  is  fourteen  leaves,  which 
are  separated  now,  twelve  of  them  being  in  the  Royal  Library 
at  Paris,  and  two  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Petersburgh. 
Of  course  they  contain  nothing  more  than  some  passages  in 
the  Pauline  epistles.  Montfaucon  first  printed  these  fragments 
with  a  fac-simile ;  *  and  Griesbach  collated  them  anew.  Tis- 
chendorf  made  a  most  accurate  copy  of  the  whole.  At  one 
time  the  codex  was  on  ]\Iount  Athos,  where  in  the  thirteenth 
century  (1218)  the  leaves  were  attached  by  way  of  cover  to 
another  MS.  From  Mount  Athos  they  were  transferred  to 
France,  and  were  in  Montfaucon's  time  in  the  library  of 
Bishop  Coislin  at  Metz.  Hence  the  name  Coislinianus  (No. 
202).  The  MS.  probably  belongs  to  the  sixth  century.  Ac- 
cording to  Montfaucon  it  was  written  in  Syria  or  Palestine, 
since  a  note  at  the  end  states  that  it  was  compared  in  the 
library  at  Caesarea  with  the  codex  of  Pamphilus,  written  by 
his  own  hand.  But  this  postscript  belongs  to  Euthalius,  and 
not  to  the  copyist. 

J.  Cod.  Cottonianus  of  the  gospels.  This  fragment  consists 
of  four  leaves  of  purple  parchment,  with  silver  characters. 
The  following  passages  are  contained  in  the  leaves  : — Matt, 
xxvi.  57-65;  xxvii.  26-34;  John  xiv.  2-10;  xv.  15-22.  All 
were  published  for  the  first  time  by  Tischendorf  in  his  "  Mon- 
umenta  Sacra  inedita,"  and  are  assigned  by  him  to  the  end  of 
the  sixth  or  beginning  of  the  seventh  century.  As  the  name 
Cottonianus  implies,  the  leaves  are  now  in  the  British  Museum 
marked  (Tit.  c.xv).  Six  leaves  originally  belonging  to  the 
same  MS,  are  now  in  the  Vatican  Library,  viz,  r  of  the  gos- 
pels. There  are  two  other  leaves  in  the  Caesarean  Library  at 
*  Bibliotheca  Coisliniana,  p.  251. 


304  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Vienna,  viz.  N  of  the  gospels.  It  were  desirable  that  the  three 
parts  should  be  brought  and  kept  together. 

J.  of  the  Catholic  epistles,  K.  of  the  Pauline  epistles  g  of 
Matthaei.  This  MS.  containing  the  Catholic  epistles  entire, 
with  a  catena  of  the  fathers,  and  also  the  Pauline  with  these 
chasms,  Romans  x.  18 — 1  Corinth,  vi.  13.  1  Corinth,  viii. 
7 — 11  is  in  the  library  at  Moscow  of  the  Holy  Synod  belong- 
ing to  the  Russian  Church  (No.  xcvili),  having  been  brought 
from  the  monastery  of  St.  Dionysius  on  Mount  Athos.  It  was 
collated  by  Matthaei,  and  belongs  to  the  ninth  century. 

J.  of  the  Pauline  epistles  is  the  same  as  G.  of  the  Acts  and 
Catholic  epistles. 

K.  Cod.  Cyprius  of  the  four  gospels.  This  MS.  in  4to  is 
written  in  uncial  letters  of  a  later  form,  narrow  and  compressed. 
The  punctuation  marks  are  inserted  without  regard  to  gram- 
matical division ;  and  a  dot  is  used  to  denote  the  end  of  a 
sttcJios,  to  save  space.  The  accents  are  negligently  placed 
and  often  wanting.  Hug  assigns  to  this  MS.  the  first  place 
in  clearly  informing  us  how  the  change  from  stichometry  to 
proper  punctuation  occurred.  Stichometry  was  laid  aside  be- 
fore it  was  written.  It  contains  the  Eusebian  canons,  and  a 
synaxarium,  and  was  evidently  intended  for  ecclesiastical  use  ; 
for  words  referring  to  lessons  frequently  occur  in  the  margin  a 
prima  manu. 

The  text  was  collated  and  described  by  Scholz,*  who  also 
gave  a  fac-simile  of  its  characters.  Montfaucon  had  formerly 
given  a  fac-simile,  and  assigned  the  codex  to  the  eighth  cen- 
tury.f  But  it  belongs  to  the  middle  or  end  of  the  ninth. 
Tischendorf  collated  it  anew,  with  far  greater  care  than  Scholz. 
So  also  Tregelles.  The  name  Cyprius  is  given  to  it  because 
it  was  brought  from  the  island  of  Cyprus  in   1673  into  the 

*  Curae  Criticae  in  historiam  textus  evangell. 
t  Palaeographia  Graeca,  p.  231. 


DESCRIPTION    OF   TIIP]    UNCIAL    MSS.  305 

Calbert  Libraiy.     It  is   now  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris 
(No.  63.) 

K.  of  the  Pauline  epistles  is  the  same  with  J.  of  the  Catholic 
epistles. 

L.  Cod.  Reg,  Paris.  (62).  This  MS.  of  the  gospels  is 
written  in  uncial  letters  not  of  the  ancient  form  but  oblong. 
Each  page  is  divided  into  two  columns,  and  the  words  usually 
follow  Avithout  intervals.  The  punctuation  is  indicated  by 
two  marks,  a  cross,  and  a  comma.  The  accents  are  frequently 
wanting,  and  often  wrongly  placed  even  when  inserted.  The 
usual  abbreviations  occur ;  and  the  letters  at  and  OX  are  some- 
times written  with  contractions.  Sometimes  a  letter  is  omitted 
in  the  middle  of  a  word.  The  r/rXo/,  tlie  Ammonian  sections 
with  references  to  the  Eusebian  canons  are  given,  together  with 
other  minor  divisions  written  in  red  letters  and  in  various 
forms  standing  out  in  the  margin.  It  has  only  five  chasms, 
viz.  Matt.  iv.  22 — v.  14 ;  xxviii.  1 7  to  the  end.  Mark  x.  16-30  ; 
XV.  2-20 ;  John  xxi.  15  to  the  end.  The  orthography  is  what 
is  called  Alexandrine.      Alexandrine  forms  abound,  ex.  gr. 

It  appears  to  have  been  made  in  Egypt.     Griesbach  and  Hug- 
assign  it  to  the  ninth  century  ;  Tischendorf  to  the  eighth. 

Every  page  abounds  with  orthographical  mistakes.  Vowels 
and  dipthongs  are  frequently  confounded,  of  which  Griesbach 
has  furnished  many  examples.*  The  copyist  appears  to  have 
been  an  ignorant  man  as  v/ell  as  negligent.  He  has  made 
many  mistakes ;  and,  according  to  Griesbach  had  various 
copies  before  him  from  which  he  took  readings  into  his  text. 
The  initial  letters  of  the  public  lessons  are  Avritten  in  red  ink, 
and  in  the  margin  Ave  frequently  meet  Avith  a^yri  and  nXog 
shewing  that  the  codex  AAas  intended  for  ecclesiastical  use. 
The  MS.  is  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris. 

Griesbacli  set  a  high  A^alue  on  the  text  of  this  MS.     It 

*  Symbolae  Criticae,  vol.  i.  p.  67,  et  seq. 
VOL.    II.  X 


306  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

agrees  remarkably  with  the  readuigs  of  Origen,  as  may  be  seen 
by  Griesbach's  laborious  comparison.*  Above  all,  it  has  a 
great  affinity  to  B.  or  the  Vatican  MS.  It  also  coincides  with 
C.  or  the  cod.  Ephrem,  and  is  an  excellent  representative  of 
the  text  current  at  Alexandria.  The  charges  made  against  it 
by  Wetstein  have  been  disproved  by  Less,  Michaelis,  and 
Griesbach,  who  take  a  juster  view  of  the  codex. 

Stephens  was  the  first  who  collated  it,  but  he  did  not  print 
all  his  extracts.  Beza  printed  forty  readings  from  the  papers 
of  Stephens.  It  is  thought  that  yi  of  Stephens  is  the  same 
MS.,  an  opinion  which  Marsh  has  rendered  all  but  certain.f 
Wetstein  collated  it  hastily.  Griesbach  afterwards  re-collated 
and  described  it  with  great  care,  with  the  exception  of  Matt, 
viii.  to  xviii.  10,  which  chapters  he  merely  examined  in  a 
cursory  manner.  Since  Griesbach  and  Scholz's  collations,  the 
whole  has  been  extracted  and  published  by  Tischendorf  with 
great  industry  and  very  accurate  fac-similes  in  his  "  Monu- 
menta  Sacra  inedita."  According  to  this  critic.  Hug's  table 
representing  the  character  presents  a  most  inadequate  likeness. 

L.  Adopting  the  suggestion  of  Tischendorf,  w^e  apply  this 
letter  in  the  Pauline  epistles  to  an  ancient  fragment  written  in 
the  uncial  character,  cited  in  the  commentaries  of  Matthaei. 
It  merely  contains  Hebrews  x.  1-7  ;  x.  32-38,  a  few  interme- 
diate words  being  lost.  This  fragment  was  applied  in  A.D. 
975  to  bind  together  a  codex  of  Gregory  Nazianzen. 

JM.  Cod.  Regius  ch  Camps  (No.  48)  of  the  four  gospels 
entire.  This  quarto  sized  MS.  is  written  in  uncial  characters, 
with  accents  and  marks  of  punctuation.  It  has  the  Euscbian 
canons,  synaxaria,  summaries  of  chapters,  and  marks  above 
the  lines  in  red  ink,  apparently  notes  to  regulate  the  chanting. 
There  are  various  readings  in  the  margin  in  cursive  character 
a  p-ima  manu.     The  MS.  was  presented  to  Louis  XIV.  by 

*  Sjmb.  Grit.  vol.  i.  p.  80,  et  seq. 
t  Letters  to  Mr.  Archdeacon  Travis,  &c.     Leipzig  1795,  8vo. 


DESCHIPTION    OF    THE    UNCIAL    MSS.  807 

tlie  Abbe  de  Camps  in  1706,  and  Is  now  in  the  Royal  Library 
at  Paris.  It  may  be  referred  to  the  end  of  the  ninth  century 
or  beginning  of  the  tenth.  The  text  agrees  generally  with 
the  Alexandrine  one ;  and  it  has  a  few  readings  peculiar  to  K. 
or  the  Cyprius.  Scholz  collated  it  thronghont.  Tischendorf 
and  Tregelles  also  collated  it ;  the  former  of  whom  contradicts 
the  assertion  of  Hug  that  the  characters  are  lahoured  as  if  they 
were  imitated.  On  the  contrary,  they  possess  some  elegance. 
IMontfaucon  has  given  a  fac-similc  specimen,*  and  also  Blan- 
chini.f 

N.  Cod.  Gaesareus  Vindohonensis.  This  fragment  of  the 
gospels  consists  of  two  leaves  of  purple  parchment  with  silver 
letters,  containing  Luke  xxiv.  13-21,  39-49.  They  belong  to 
the  same  MS.  as  j  and  r  of  the  gospels.  As  the  name  imports, 
the  fragment  is  now  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Vienna.  The 
text  was  accurately  printed  for  the  first  time  by  Tischendorf  in 
his  "  Monumenta  Sacra  inedita."  He  refers  the  date  to  the 
end  of  the  sixth  or  beginning  of  the  seventh  century. 

O.  Cod.  Mosquensis  of  the  gospels.  This  is  nothing  but  a 
fragnjent  of  some  larger  MS.  consisting  of  eight  leaves,  which 
contain  John  i.  1-4;  xx.  10-13,  1.5-17,  20-24.  Some  scholia 
are  written  beside  these  portions  in  cursive  characters.  The 
fragment  is  now  in  the  Holy  Synod's  Library  at  Moscow, 
having  been  brought  from  Mount  Athos.  The  leaves  Avere 
glued  by  way  of  fastening  to  a  MS.  of  Chrysostom's  homilies. 
Tischendorf  dates  them  in  the  ninth  century ;  and  IMatthaei 
collated  them  at  Moscow. 

In  the  editions  of  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  and  Scholz,  it  will 
be  observed,  that  0.  designates  a  fragment  of  Luke's  gospel 
presented  to  Montfaucon  by  Anselm  Banduri.  This  fragment 
contains  Luke  xviii.  11-13,  with  verse  14  from  rov  nixov.  But 
Tischendorf  shews  that  it  belonged  to  an  evangelistarium  or 

*  Palaeographia  Graeca,  pp.  260,  261. 
+   Evangeliarium  Qnadruplex,  vol.  i.  p.  CDXCii. 


308  BIBLICAL    CRITICIS:\i. 

lesson-lbook  of  the  gospels  of  the  tenth  century.  Hence  it 
should  be  expunged  from  the  present  list,  and  another  O  sub- 
stituted, as  we  have  done  after  Tischendorf's  example.* 

P.  Cod.  Guelpherhytanus  A.  This  is  a  rescript  MS. 
Fragments  of  the  four  gospels  written,  as  is  supposed,  in  the 
sixth  century,  were  erased  in  the  eighth  or  ninth  century  for 
the  purpose  of  writing  various  works  of  Isidore  of  Spain. 
These  fragments,  containing  portions  of  the  four  gospels,  were 
published  with  a  commentary  by  Knittel  at  Brunswick  1762, 
4to.  But  though  this  scholar  took  great  pains  to  decypher 
the  fragments,  and  printed  accurately  all  that  he  could  read, 
there  is  a  probability  that  more  might  be  made  out  by  closer 
inspection  or  the  application  of  chemical  substances.  The 
parts  that  have  been  deciphered  are  enumerated  by  Tischen- 
dorf.  As  the  name  indicates,  the  MS.  is  in  the  library  at 
Wolfenbiittel. 

Q.  Cod.  Gueljiherhytamis  B.  This  is  another  rescript  MS. 
in  the  same  library  at  Wolfenbiittel.  Fragments  of  the  gospels 
of  Luke  and  John  were  erased  to  make  room  for  treatises  of 
Isidore  of  Spain.  The  fragments  were  deciphered  and  pub- 
lished by  Knittel.  Tischendorf  enumerates  the  passages. 
They  are  attributed  like  P.  to  the  sixth  century. 

H.  Cod.  NeapoUtanus.  This  is  a  Typicum  or  monastic 
ritual  of  the  Greek  church  marked  Borbom'cus  II.  C.  15  in  the 
library  at  Naples.  Fragments  of  the  gospels  have  been  dis- 
covered under  the  recent  writing,  amounting  to  twelve  or 
fourteen  leaves.  Tischendorf  attributes  them  to  the  eighth 
century.  By  applying  a  chemical  test  'lischendorf  was  able 
to  read  one  page,  Mark  xiv,  32-89,  which  he  published  in  the 
Wiener  Jahrbiicher  for  1847.  R.  in  the  editions  of  Griesbach 
and  Scholz  is  applied  to  a  Tubingen  fragment  having  John 
i.  38-50.  But  Tischendorf  shews  that  the  fragment  belongs 
to  an  Evangelistarmm  of  about  the  eleventh  century.  Hence 
*  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  03. 


DESCRIPTION    OF   THE    UNCIAL    MSS.  309 

it  should  be  discarded  from  the  present  hst.  Our  11,  follows 
Tischendorf 's  annotation.* 

S.  Cod.  Vaticanus  354.  This  MS.  contains  the  four  gospels 
complete.  It  is  on  vellum  in  folio,  written  in  compressed 
uncial  characters,  and  was  made  by  one  Michael  a  monk  in 
949,  according  to  the  subscription.  The  text  contains  what 
is  called  the  Constantinopolitan  recension.  Birch  was  the  first 
who  collated  it  at  Kome,  and  gave  extracts  from  it  in  his 
edition  of  the  four  gospels.  Tischendorf  afterwards  inspected 
it  cursorily,  but  gave  a  good  fac-simile  of  it,  stating  the  faults 
of  those  representations  which  had  been  given  by  Blanchini 
and  Birch. 

T.  God.  Borgianus  1.  This  MS.  in  quarto  contains  frag- 
ments of  John's  gospel  having  the  Thebaic  or  Sahidic  version 
at  the  side  of  them.  They  consist  of  vi.  28-67  ;  vii.  6-52 ; 
viii.  12-31.  The  date  is  the  fifth  century,  not  the  fourth  as 
Georgi  endeavoured  to  prove.  They  were  published  by  Georgi 
at  Rome  in  1789,  with  the  Sahidic  version;  and  are  in  the 
library  of  the  Propaganda  College  at  Rome.  Tischendorf 
states  that  he  examined  the  codex  and  made  a  fac-simile. 

U.  Cod.  Nanianus  1,  now  Vetictus  Marcianus.  This  MS. 
contains  the  four  gospels  entire,  with  the  Eusebian  canons. 
It  was  first  collated  by  Miinter,  whose  extracts  were  inserted 
by  Birch  in  his  Greek  Testament.  It  belongs  to  the  ninth  or 
tenth  century.  In  1843  it  was  collated  again  by  Tischendorf, 
and  recollated  by  Tregelles.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that 
Tischendorf's  extracts  are  not  very  accurate.  The  MS.  is  in 
the  library  of  St.  Mark's  at  Venice ;  and  though  the  text  is 
generally  of  the  later  type,  yet  it  accords  with  the  Alexandrine 
in  many  remarkable  readings. 

V.  Cod.  Mosquensis  of  the  four  gospels.  This  codex  is  writ- 
ten on  vellum  in  octavo  in  uncial  letters,  probably  of  the  ninth 
century.  But  from  o-iTw  ^ag  nwa  John  vii.  39  is  cursive  writing 
*  Prolegomena  in  N.  T.  p.  64. 


310  BIBLICAL   CIUTICLSM. 

of  the  thirteenth  centuiy.  It  was  defective  (in  1779)  in  Matt. 
V.  44 — vi.  12  and  ix.  18 — x.  1.  In  1783  it  had  also  lost 
Matt.  xxii.  44 — xxiii.  35.  John  xxi.  10  to  the  end.  It  was 
first  described,  and  extracts  given  from  it  by  Matthaei  in  his 
Greek  Testament,  with  a  fac-simile.  He  collated  it  twice. 
It  is  deposited  in  the  library  of  the  Holy  Synod  at  Moscow.* 

W.  God.  Beg.  Paris  314.  This  consists  of  two  fragments 
(two  leaves)  containing  Luke  ix.  34-47  and  x.  12-22.  It  is 
written  on  vellmn,  in  quarto,  and  belongs  to  the  eighth  century. 
Scholz  was  the  first  who  made  a  collation  of  the  passages ; 
but  it  is  a  very  imperfect  one.  The  whole  has  been  published 
by  Tischendorf  with  a  fac-simile  in  his  "  Monumenta  Sacra 
inedita."  As  the  name  imports,  the  codex  is  in  the  Royal 
Library  at  Paris. 

X.  Cod.  Monacensis^  formerly  called  Ingolstadiensis  and 
Landishiitensis.  This  MS.  contains  fragments  of  the  four 
gospels.  The  passages  it  exhibits  are  accurately  given  by 
Tischendorf,  not  by  Scholz.  From  Matt.  ii.  22 — vii.  1  have 
been  supplied  by  a  hand  of  the  twelfth  century  ;  so  that  the 
MS.  is  really  defective  until  vii.  1.  To  the  text  of  the  gospels 
of  Matthew  and  John  are  added  commentaries  taken  from 
Chrysostom  ;  on  John  xix.  6,  &c.,  from  Origen  and  Hesychius 
of  Jerusalem ;  and  on  Luke,  from  Titus  of  Bostra.  These 
commentaries  are  written  in  a  small  character  among  the 
Greek  lines,  resembling  the  character  in  an  Oxford  codex  of 
Plato's  Dialogues  written  in  896.  Hence  the  date  may  be  the 
end  of  the  ninth  or  beginning  of  the  tenth  century.  Dobrovski 
communicated  some  readings  of  this  codex  to  Griesbach.  It 
was  collated  for  the  first  time  by  Scholz.  After  him,  it  has 
been  collated  again  by  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles.  It  is  noAv 
in  the  public  library  at  IMunich,  and  commonly  exhibits  an 
ancient  and  good  text — Avhat  has  been  called  the  Alex- 
andrine. 

*  Matthaei's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  x.  p.  26o. 


DESCKirnON    OF    THE    UNCIAL    MSS.  Mil 

Y.  Cod.  Bihliothecae  Barherinae  225.  This  is  a  iragmeiit 
(six  leaves)  of  John's  gospel,  written  on  vellum,  in  folio,  pro- 
bably of  the  eigli  th  century.  It  contains  John  xvi.  3—  xix.  41 , 
prefixed  to  a  codex  of  the  gospels  furnished  with  Theophylact's 
commentaries,  of  the  twelfth  century.  Scholz  imperfectly 
collated  the  fragment ;  and  Tischendorf  has  published  it 
entire,  with  a  fac-similc  in  his  "  Monumenta  Sacra  inedita." 
The  name  implies  that  it  is  in  the  Barberinian  Library  at 
Rome. 

Z.  Cod.  Bublinensis,  a  rescript  MS.  of  Matthew's  gospel. 
Dr.  Barrett  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  writing  in  1801  says, 
that  fourteen  years  ago  he  met  with  a  Greek  MS.  in  the  library 
of  the  University,  on  some  leaves  of  which  he  observed  traces 
of  a  twofold  writing,  one  ancient,  the  other  comparatively 
recent.  The  old  letters  had  been  much  effaced  either  by  art 
or  time.  On  minutely  examining  the  ancient  writing  over 
which  the  other  had  been  written,  he  found  it  to  consist  of 
three  fragments  of  Isaiah,  St.  Matthew,  and  certain  orations 
of  Gregory  Nazianzen.  He  applied  himself  to  the  transcrip- 
tion of  what  remained  of  Matthew's  gospel ;  the  whole  was 
accurately  engraved  in  fac-simile  on  sixty-four  copper  plates  5 
and  the  work  was  published  at  the  expense  of  the  University 
in  a  very  splendid  form,  in  quarto.  The  editor  gives  on  the 
opposite  page  to  the  fac-simile  the  words  in  the  usual  Greek 
type,  with  lines  corresponding.  Here  his  accuracy  cannot  be 
commended.  In  fact  he  has  made  many  blunders.  Below 
each  page  is  a  collation  of  the  readings  of  A.  B.  C.  D.  L.  and 
\arious  other  MSS. ;  several  of  the  fathers,  especially  Origen, 
tlie  two  Syriac  versions  and  others,  including  the  old  Latin, 
Extracts  from  all  these  sources  are  given  ;  and  the  variations 
from  the  Amsterdam  text  (1711 )  of  Gerard  Maestricht  carefully 
marked.  The  MS.  is  not  collated  with  the  text  of  AVetstein, 
as  has  been  erroneously  affirmed. 

The  prolegomena  give  an  account  of  the  MS.,  foUoAved  by 


312  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

an  essay  on  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord.  An  appendix  contains 
a  collation  of  the  codex  Montfortianus. 

Hug  says  correctly  that  the  MS.  is  inferior  to  none  in 
point  of  beauty.  The  character  is  of  the  ancient  form,  large, 
roundj  and  full.  The  shape  of  A.  and  M.  is  somewhat  pecu- 
liar ;  while  T  X  A  have  curves  at  the  top.  Sometimes  I  and 
T  have  two  dots  over  them,  as  is  the  case  in  various  ancient 
MSS.  There  are  no  accents  or  spirits.  In  regard  to  punctua- 
tion, the  only  mark  is  a  dot.  When  this  stands  in  a  consider- 
able blank  space  it  denotes  a  period  ;  in  a  space  equal  to  about 
half  a  letter  it  is  equivalent  to  the  colon ;  in  a  space  scarcely 
so  large  as  that  intended  for  the  colon  it  denotes  a  comma. 
Each  page  contains  one  column,  and  the  columns  usually  con- 
sist of  twenty-one  lines  ;  sometimes  but  rarely  of  twenty-three. 
The  lines  are  nearly  of  equal  lengths,  and  ordinarily  contain 
eighteen  or  twenty  letters. 

The  codex  has  the  Tk\ot  or  larger  chapters  marked  both 
at  the  top  of  the  page  and  in  the  margin.  At  present, 
however,  this  appears  only  once  in  the  margin,  viz.  at  xviii.  1 ; 
and  four  times  at  the  top  of  the  page.  It  has  also  the  Ammo- 
nian  sections,  which  are  actually  found  here  only  in  xiv.  13 
and  xviii.  1  ;  but  not  the  Eusebian  canons.  In  this  last 
respect  it  resembles  D.  The  initial  letters  of  sections  stand 
out  in  the  margin  and  are  larger  than  the  rest.  That  these 
marginal  letters  referring  to  the  sections  larger  and  smaller, 
are  a  prima  manu  we  have  no  doubt.  Whatever  difference 
there  may  be  between  the  forms  of  some  letters  in  them  and 
the  forms  of  the  same  letters  in  the  text,  is  easily  accounted 
for,  without  supposing  a  later  hand.  Dr.  Barrett  seems  to 
have  had  no  idea  of  a  different  person  ;  nor  would  any  one 
who  carefully  examines  the  MS.  itself. 

With  regard  to  orthography,  the  interchange  of  the  vowels 
and  dipthongs  i  and  ai,  /  and  n  is  frequent.  In  Matt.  xvii.  17 
we  have  nlso  £  for  a  in  oisoT^i/i/ievri,  and  vice  versa  a  for  i  in 


DESCUIFTION   OP   THE    UNCIAL    MSS,  313 

Matt.  xi.  7.  Delta  is  also  written  for  theta  in  B^j^^ay^,  just 
as  in  the  cod.  Alexand.  B'/jSira/Sa.  Hng  observes*  that  he  met 
with  the  following  Alexandrine  forms  of  words,  XriiJ^-^irai^ 
Matt.  X.  41 ;  •rgotrf-Tsffal',  vii.  25  ;  st,nX&a7i^  xi.  7,  8,  9.  To 
these  may  be  added  Xji/A-vl/oira/,  xx,  10,  the  space  for  the  /o- 
being  now  vacant;  and  X-/j,v,4£ra/,  x.  41,  where  the  space  for 
IM  is  also  vacant. 

Tlie  age  of  the  original  MS.  has  been  carefnlly  investigated 
by  the  editor,  who  assigns  it  to  the  sixth  century,  an  opinion  in 
which  other  critics  commonly  coincide.  The  text  agrees  well 
with  this  period,  for  it  resembles  that  found  in  the  most  ancient 
and  valuable  documents.  Although  so  much  mutilated  in 
every  page,  it  is  most  useful  in  supplying  the  chasms  of  A.  C. 
and  D.  Tischendorf  gives  an  accurate  list  of  the  portions 
included  in  it,  expressing  his  belief  that  more  could  be  deci- 
phered. If  the  Giobertine  tincture  were  applied  to  it,  it  is  very 
likely  that  many  more  words  might  be  brought  out.  Since 
these  remarks  were  written,  we  hear  that  leave  has  been  given 
to  revirify  the  MS.  by  a  chemical  test.  The  MS.  was  apM?;^;?e 
one  at  first.f 

r  God.  VaUcanus.  These  six  leaves  of  the  purple  MS. 
with  silver  letters,  belong  to  the  same  codex  as  J.  and  N. 
They  contain  fragments  of  Matthew's  gospel  in  xix.  6-13 ; 
XX.  6-22;  XX.  29 — xxi.  19;  and  were  collated  by  Gaetanus 
Marini.  Tischendorf  has  published  them  entire  with  a  fac- 
simile, in  his  "  Monumenta  Sacra  iuedita."  Their  age  is  the 
end  of  the  sixth  or  beginning  of  the  seventh  century.  As  the 
name  imports  they  are  now  in  the  Vatican. 

A  Cod.  Sangallensis.  This  is  a  Greek-Latin  MS.  of  the 
four  gospels,  in  the  library  of  St.  Gallen  in  Switzerland,  con- 
taining the  four  gospels  in  Greek  with  tlie  Latin  interlinear, 

*  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  2-15. 
t  Ree    Evangelium    secundum    Matthaeum    ex    codice   rescripto    in 
Bibliothcca  Collcgii  .ss"c  Trinitatis  juxta  Dublin,  1801,  4to. 


314  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM, 

and  deficient  only  in  Jolm  xix.  17-35.    Tiie  codex  is  on  vellum, 
in  quarto. 

The  Greek  letters  are  uncial,  not  the  large  uncial  of  the 
fourth  and  following  centuries,  but  a  sort  of  uncial  approach- 
ing the  later  cursive.  The  Latin  is  much  smaller  than  the 
Greek.  But  the  height  as  well  as  the  breadth  of  the  letters 
varies  very  much.  In  every  line  are  one  or  more  letters  much 
larger  than  the  rest,  ornamented  with  different  colours.  The 
Avords  are  separated  from  one  another,  and  there  are  frequent 
dots  between  them,  not  always  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting misconception  or  uncertainty  where  the  division  into 
words  might  have  been  doubtful  in  an  exemplar  written  con- 
tinuously, but  sometimes  inserted  arhitrarihj^  as  will  appear  to 
any  one  who  reads  a  single  page  of  the  MS.  Hence  no  argu- 
ment can  be  derived  from  these  dots  to  sliew  that  our  codex 
was  copied  from  another  written  continuously  in  which  guiding- 
marks  had  been  inserted  to  prevent  misconception.  In  one 
part,  viz.  Mark's  gospel,  there  is  a  point  at  the  end  of  every 
word. 

There  are  no  accents  or  spirits,  except  at  the  beginning  of 
Mark,  where  several  traces  of  them  appear.  But  the  accents 
are  placed  there  very  incorrectly.  It  would  seem  that  both 
accents  and  spirits  were  just  beginning  to  be  written  when  the 
MS.  was  made. 

The  text  is  divided  into  GTiyj)i  which  begin  with  a  large 
letter ;  but  a  dot  is  not  always  found  at  the  end  of  a  cTiyjn;. 

The  Latin  cannot  be  properly  called  the  old  Latin  or  antc- 
Jneronymicm  version,  but  it  is  rather  tlie  Vulgate  altered, 
patched,  and  ignorantly  meddled  with.  It  is  full  of  mistakes, 
and  of  no  value — without  any  independent  character. 

As  the  same  hand  wrote  both  the  Latin  and  tlie  Greek,  and 
as  the  Latin  character  is  the  Anglo-Saxon,  it  might  be  supposed 
that  the  MS.  ^vas  written  in  Scotland  or  Ireland.  But  the 
scribe  may  have  been  a  Scotchman  or  Irishman  and  not  have 


DESCKIPTION  OF  THE  UNCIAL  MSS.  315 

written  the  codex  in  his  own  country.  This  is  the  likeHer 
supposition ;  for  though  Eettig  *  has  enumerated  the  various 
particulars  which  might  be  thought  to  point  to  Ireland,  he  does 
not  think  them  conclusive  in  favour  of  that  country  having 
been  the  birth-place  of  the  MS.  itself.  The  MS.  was  probably 
written  in  Switzerland,  where  we  suppose  it  to  have  always 
been ;  for  it  is  well  known  that  many  Irish  monks  went  from 
their  own  country  and  either  founded  monasteries  in  Switzer- 
land and  other  parts,  or  else  became  inmates  of  them.  They 
were  preceptors  and  teachers  in  those  establishments. 

Eettig  has  endeavom-ed  to  shew  that  the  MS.  was  written 
by  various  scribes,  one  part  by  one,  and  another  by  another. 
Though  the  writing  is  similar,  yet  there  are  minute  distinc- 
tions and  other  things  which  make  it  probable  that  more  than 
one  person  was  employed  in  copying  it.  But  that  must  have 
been  at  the  same  time,  and  may  have  been  in  the  same  place, 
different  boys  in  the  one  monastery  having  been  taught  by  the 
same  master.  It  serves  to  corroborate  this  conclusion,  that  the 
character  of  the  text  differs  in  different  parts ;  so  that  various 
sources  appear  to  have  been  used.  In  Mathew's  gospel  the 
text  is  valueless ;  but  in  Mark's  it  resembles  much  the  read- 
ings of  B.  and  L.,  i.e.  the  most  ancient  and  best  readings. 
But  though  the  text  in  Mark  be  so  much  superior  to  that  in 
the  other  gospels ;  yet  it  seems  to  have  been  written  by  two 
transcribers  ;  the  first  careful  and  accurate  ;  the  second  hasty 
and  negligent.  Many  letters  are  confounded  with  one  another, 
which  is  the  case  in  most  MSS.  Thus  it  and  /,  «/  and  n,  'n  and 
;,  at  and  s,  ri  and  v  are  often  interchanged.  In  addition  to  these, 
other  letters  are  similarly  confounded.  The  same  kind  of  mis- 
takes are  found  in  the  Latin,  of  which  Eettig  has  given  ex- 
amples. 

There  are  marginal  notes  of  various  kinds.  Some  relate 
to  the  numbers  of  the  Eusebian  canons  and  Ammonian  sec- 
*  Prolegomena  in  Antiquiss.  quat.  evang.  cod.  Sangall.  &c.  &c. 


316  BIBLICAL   CKITICISM. 

tions.  Others  refer  to  the  subjects  treated  of.  There  are  two 
places  in  which  the  name  Gottschalk  is  found.  The  name 
Aganon  also  occurs  in  places  relating  to  asceticism,  so  that 
Aganon  is  identified  with  the  bishop  of  Carnota,  who  died  in 
841,  having  rebuilt  the  monastery  of  St.  Peter  en  Vallee.  The 
close  relation  between  the  cod.  Boemerianus  and  this  one  has 
not  been  unobserved.  The  same  description  applies  to  both, 
for  their  characteristic  peculiarities  are  the  same.  Thus  gram- 
matical notes  are  inserted  among  the  words  of  the  Latin  ver- 
sion in  both  ;  many  marginal  notes  are  the  same  in  both ;  both 
texts  indicate  the  arguments  at  the  margin ;  the  same  words 
are  untranslated  in  both  ;  and  the  same  mistakes  occur  in  them. 
These  things  show  that  they  have  a  near  affinity.  Indeed  they 
are  parts  of  the  same  MS.,  for  in  addition  to  the  similarities 
collected  by  Rettig,  it  has  been  found  that  the  same  later  hand 
has  written  on  leaves  now  belonging  to  both,  thus  proving 
that  they  were  once  together.  And  the  leaves  w^anting  in  the 
one  are  found  in  the  other.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
therefore  that  they  are  parts  of  one  and  the  same  codex.  The 
MS.  was  not  collated  by  Scholz,  who  does  not  appear  to  have 
visited  St.  Gall  monastery.  He  does  not  say  what  prevented 
him  from  getting  a  collation.  After  some  difficulty  it  was  lent 
to  Rettig,  who  made  a  fac-simile,  and  prepared  the  whole  for 
publication,  with  learned  prolegomena  and  annotations  at  the 
end.  The  work  appeared  with  the  following  title  ''  Antiquis- 
sionus  quatuor  evangeUorum  canonicorum  codex  Sangallensis 
Oraeco-Latinus  interlinearis  nunquam  adhuc  collahis^  &c.  &c. 
curavit  H.  G.  M.  Rettig.      Turici,  1836,  4^"." 

0  Cod.  Tischendorfianus  1.  This  fragment,  consisting  of 
four  leaves,  the  third  of  which  is  almost  gone,  was  brought 
from  the  East  by  Tischendorf.  The  leaves  contain  Matt.  xiv. 
8-29  (xiii.  46-55  being  almost  lost),  xv.  4-14.  They  are 
attributed  to  the  middle  or  end  of  the  seventh  century,  and 
were    published    by  Tischendorf,    witli    n    fac-simile,    in    his 


DESCRIPTIUN    UF    THE    UNCIAL    MSS.  317 

"  Monumenta    Sacra    inedita."      He    deposited    tliem    in  the 
library  of  the  University  of  Leipzig. 

A  Cod.  Sinaiticns.  This  appellation  has  been  given  by 
Tischendorf  to  two  fragments  very  much  mutilated,  which  he 
saw  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Catherine  on  j\Iount  Sinai,  on  the 
cover  of  an  Arabic  book.  The  one  fragment  contains  Matt. 
XX.  8-15 ;  the  other  Luke  i.  14-20.  Tischendorf  attributes 
them  to  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century.  All  that  he  could 
read  in  the  mutilated  fragments  he  published  in  the  Wiener 
Jahrhlicher  for  1846. 


CHAPTER   XXL 


CURSIVE  MSS. 
In  this  chapter  Ave  shall  notice  a  few  of  tlie  best  cursive  MSS. 

1.  This  MS.  contains  all  the  New  Testament  except  the 
Apocaljpse.  It  is  on  parchment,  in  octavo,  marked 
Basileensis  B.  vi.  27,  in  the  library  of  tlie  University  at 
Basel.  Wetstein,  who  first  described  and  collated  it, 
though  it  had  been  used  by  others  before,  says  that  the 
text  of  the  gospels  does  not  agree  with  the  textus  receptus^ 
as  in  the  Acts  and  epistles.  It  has  in  that  part  an 
ancient  type  of  text,  and  is  therefore  important.  Tre- 
gelles  collated  the  gospels. 

13.  This  is  a  parchment  MS.  in  quarto  of  the  twelfth  century, 
containing  the  four  gospels,  with  various  chasms  which 
are  specified  by  Scholz.  It  is  incorrectly  wa-itten ; 
though  the  text  is  of  the  more  ancient  type.  It  was 
cursorily  collated  by  Kuster  and  Wetstein ;  more  ac- 
curately by  Griesbach  and  Begtrup.  The  codex  is 
in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris,  where  it  is  now  num- 
bered 50. 

22.  This  is  a  parchment  MS.  in  quarto  of  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury, containing  the  four  gospels,  with  some  chasms. 
The  text  is  correctly  written,  and  is  of  the  Alexandrine 


CURSIVE    MSS.  311) 

character.  It  Avas  collated  by  Wetstciii  and  Scholz, 
and  is  numbered  72  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris. 
33.  This  j\IS.  on  parchment,  in  folio,  of  the  eleventh  centmy, 
contains  all  the  New  Testament  except  the  Apocalypse. 
It  contains  a  part  of  the  prophets,  the  epistles,  Acts, 
and  gospels.  Almost  all  the  extremities  of  the  leaves 
are  injured  by  damp,  or  torn,  and  the  leaves  them- 
selves put  into  disorder  by  a  blundering  bookbinder. 
It  has  been  collated  by  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Begtrup, 
in  part,  and  by  Scholz,  entirely,  as  he  says.  But  Tre- 
gelles,  who  has  collated  the  MS.  with  great  care,  says 
that  Scholz  is  very  inaccurate  in  his  readings.*  The 
text  is  of  the  ancient  type  called  Alexandrine.  In  the 
Acts  and  Catholic  epistles  it  is  numbered  13 ;  in  the 
Pauline  epistles  17.  It  is  deposited  in  the  Royal 
Library  at  Paris,  where  it  is  marked  14.  Eichhorn 
calls  it  "  the  queen  among  cursive  MSS.,"  f  an  appel- 
lation it  deserves  on  account  of  its  primary  importance. 
69.  This  MS.,  partly  on  parchment  and  partly  on  paper, 
embraces  the  entire  New  Testament,  with  some  gaps. 
It  is  commonly  assigned  to  the  fourteentli  century, 
though  the  text  is  of  the  ancient  form.  Mill  collated 
it  hastily.  It  was  afterwards  more  accurately,  but  yet 
not  thoroughly  collated  by  Jackson.  The  codex 
belongs  to  the  public  Library  of  Leicester.  In  the 
Acts  it  is  marked  31 ;  in  the  Pauline  epistles  37  j  in 
the  Apocalypse  14. 

102.  This  number  characterises  a  few  fragments  in  a  MS. 
deposited  in  the  Medicean  library  at  Florence,  from 
Matt.  xxiv. — Mark  viii.  1.  Wetstein  procured  a  col- 
lation of  them. 

106.  This  is  a  MS.  on  parchment,  containing  the  four  gospels, 

*  See  Kitto's  .Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  July  1850,  p.  228. 
t  Einleitung,  vol.  v.  p.  217. 


320  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

and  belonging  to  the  tenth  centmy.  It  was  collated 
by  Jackson.  The  text  is  said  to  be  Alexandrine,  and 
often  to  follow  the  later  Syriac  version.  The  codex 
is  in  the  library  of  tlie  Earl  of  Winchelsea, 

118.  This  ]\IS.  is  on  parchment,  in  quarto,  and  contains  tlie 
four  gospels.  It  is  mutilated  at  the  beginning  and 
end,  for  it  begins  with  Matt.  vi.  3,  and  ends  with  John 
xvi.  25.  Another  more  recent  hand  has  supplied  what 
was  wanting.  It  is  assigned  by  Griesbach,  who  de- 
scribed and  accurately  collated  it,  to  the  thirteenth 
century.*  The  codex  is  now  in  tlie  Bodleian  Library 
at  Oxford.     It  was  formerly  numbered  Mars?n,  24. 

124.  This  is  a  parchment  MS.  in  quarto  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, containing  the  four  gospels.  It  is  mutilated  in 
Luke's  gospel.  The  text  approaches  the  antique  form, 
but  it  has  some  singular  readings.  It  has  been  col- 
lated by  Treschow,  Alter,  and  Birch,  and  belongs  to 
the  Imperial  Library  at  Vienna,  Nessel.  188. 

131.  This  is  a  Vatican  MS.  (360)  containing  the  Gospels, 
Acts  and  Epistles.  It  is  on  parchment,  in  quarto,  and 
belongs  to  the  eleventh  century.  Formerly  it  belonged 
to  Aldus  Manutius,  who  made  use  of  it  when  he  was 
printing  the  Greek  Testament.  The  text  is  somewhat 
singular  in  the  character  of  its  readings.  In  the  i^cts 
it  is  marked  70 ;  in  the  Epistles  77.  Scholz  is  incor- 
rect in  calling  it  6  in  the  Apocalypse  when  it  wants 
that  book. 

142.  Tliis  is  also  a  Vatican  MS.  (1210)  on  parchment,  in 
duodecimo,  of  the  eleventh  century,  containing  the 
Gospels,  Acts,  Epistles,  and  Psalms.  It  was  collated 
by  Birch  and  Scholz.  In  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epis- 
tles it  is  marked  76 ;  in  the  Pauline  epistles  87. 

157.  This  is  a  Vatican  MS.  (2)  on  parchment  in  octavo,  belong- 
*  Symbolae  Criticae,  vol.  i.  p.  202,  et  seq. 


CURSIVE   MSS,  321 

ing  to  the  twelfth  century,  and  containing  the  four 
gospels.  The  text  seems  to  have  been  taken  from 
ancient  codices.     It  was  collated  by  Birch  and  Scholz. 

209.  This  is  a  MS.  on  parchment  in  octavo,  of  the  fourteenth 
or  fifteenth  century,  containing  the  whole  of  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  now  in  Venice.  The  text  is  good, 
especially  in  the  gospels.  Birch  and  Engelbreth  col- 
lated it.  In  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles  it  is  marked 
95,  in  the  Pauline  108,  in  the  Apocalypse  46. 

346.  This  is  a  MS.  on  parchment  in  quarto,  of  the  twelfth 
century,  containing  the  gospels,  with  a  chasm  in  the 
fourth.     It  is  now  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan. 

435.  This  MS.  on  parchment  is  in  quarto,  and  contains  the 
four  gospels  with  some  chasms.  The  text  is  of  the 
Alexandrine  type.  It  was  collated  by  Dermout,  and 
belongs  to  the  library  of  Leyden  University,  marked 
Or  on.  131. 


40.  This  MS.  on  parchment  in  quarto  of  the  eleventh  century, 
contains  the  Acts,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse.  The 
end  of  the  epistle  to  Titus,  Philemon,  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse are  by  a  later  hand.  It  was  collated  by  Zacagni, 
and  is  now  in  the  Vatican,  numbered  Alexandrino-  Ya- 
ticamis  179.  In  the  Pauline  epistles  it  is  46,  in  the 
Apocalypse  12. 

73.  This  is  a  Vatican  MS.  (367)  on  parchment  in  quarto,  be- 
longing to  the  eleventh  century,  containing  the  Acts  and 
Epistles.  It  was  collated  by  Birch,  and  in  some  places 
by  Scholz.     In  the  Pauline  epistles  it  is  marked  80. 

81.  This  is  a  parchment  MS.  in  folio  of  the  eleventh  century, 
containing  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles,  with  a  com- 
mentary. The  text  is  of  the  ancient  type.  Birch  col- 
lated it  in  some  places.  It  is  in  the  Barberinian 
Library  at  Rome,  No.  377. 

VOL.  II.  Y 


322  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

96.  This  codex  is  also  on  parchment  in  quarto,  of  the  eleventh 
century.  It  contains  the  Acts  and  Epistles  with  a 
Latin  and  Arabic  version,  as  also  Philemon,  and  has 
been  collated  by  Rinck.  It  is  in  Venice.  In  the 
Pauline  epistles  it  is  numbered  109. 

114.  This  MS.  is  on  parchment  in  quarto,  belongs  to  the 
thirteenth  century,  and  contains  the  Acts  and  Epistles 
with  several  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  It  has  been 
collated  very  cursorily  by  Scholz,  and  is  in  the  Eoyal 
Library  at  Paris,  No.  57.  In  the  Pauline  epistles  it  is 
numbered  134  by  Scholz. 

137.  This  MS.  is  on  parchment  in  quarto,  belonging  to  the 
eleventh  century.  It  contains  the  Acts  and  Epistles, 
the  text  being  chiefly  what  is  termed  the  Alexandrine. 
In  the  Pauline  epistles  it  is  marked  176.  The  codex 
is  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan. 

142.  This  is  a  parchment  MS.  in  duodecimo,  belonging  to 
the  twelfth  century,  containing  the  Acts  and  Epistles. 
It  is  in  the  library  at  Munich  (243).  In  the  Pauline 
epistles  the  number  belonging  to  it  in  critical  editions 
is  178. 


47.  This  MS.  on  parchment  in  quarto,  belongs  to  the  twelfth 
century,  and  contains  Paul's  epistles  with  Scholia.  It 
is  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford,  where  it  is  marked 
Roe  16. 

53.  This  fragment  is  on  parchment,  folio,  containing  part  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It  belongs  to  the  tenth 
century,  and  is  in  the  public  library  at  Hamburgh, 
where  it  is  marked  TJffeMhachianum.  The  text  is 
ancient  and  valuable.  An  exact  description  of  it  was 
given  by  Hencke,  but  it  had  been  used  before  by 
Bengel  and  Wetstein.     Tregelles  says  that  he  collated 


CURSIVE   MSS.  323 

it  twice  as  carefully  as  he  could.*  According  to  Scliolz, 
this  fragment  is  written  in  the  uncial  character,  which 
is  rightly  queried  by  Tischendorf. 

55.  This  MS.  is  of  the  eleventh  century,  and  contains  not 
only  the  Pauline  epistles,  but  the  Acts  (No.  46).  It  is 
in  the  library  of  Munich. 

64.  This  fragment  contains  parts  of  the  epistles  to  the  Corin- 
thians, and  is  evidently  of  the  same  age  and  character 
as  the  Uffenbach  fragment  in  Hamburgh,  No.  53. 
Indeed  there  is  little  doubt  that  both  belonged  to  the 
same  codex.  These  leaves  are  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  Harleianus  5613. 

73.  This  MS.  contains  the  Acts  (No.  68),  as  well  as  the 
Pauline  epistles.  It  was  collated  by  Auriville,  and  is 
attributed  to  the  twelftli  century.  It  belongs  to  the 
library  of  Upsal. 
137.  This  MS.  contains  not  only  the  Pauline  epistles,  but  also 
the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Apocalypse.  It  is  mutilated  in 
some  verses  of  the  epistle  to  Philemon.  It  was  first 
collated  but  cursorily  by  Scholz,  in  the  Royal  Library 
at  Paris,  where  it  is  numbered  61.  In  the  Gospels  it 
is  263,  in  the  Acts  117,  in  the  Apocalypse  54,  accord- 
ing to  Scholz's  notation. 


31,  This  MS.  is  on  paper,  and  belongs  to  the  fifteenth 
century.  It  contains  the  Apocalypse  and  the  works  of 
Dionysius  the  (so-called)  Areopagite.  A  collation  of 
the  first  eight  chapters  was  communicated  to  Griesbach 
for  his  second  edition.  The  codex  is  in  the  British 
Museum,  numbered  Harleianus  5678. 

38.  This  is  on  cotton  paper,  and  contains  the  Revelation,  with 
some  works  of  the  fathers.  It  is  in  octavo,  and  be- 
*  See  Kitto's  Journal  for  October  1850,  p.  451. 


324  BIBLICAL   CRTTIOISM. 

longs  to  the  thirteenth  century.  It  was  collated  by 
Birch  and  inspected  by  Scholz.  The  text  is  considered 
very  valuable,  as  it  agrees  with  the  most  ancient  MSS. 
A.  and  C.     In  the  Vatican  it  is  marked  579. 

41.  This  is  also  on  paper,  and  belongs  to  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury. It  contains  the  Revelation  with  some  other 
works.  Birch  collated  it ;  and  it  was  also  inspected 
by  Scholz.     It  is  marked  Ahxandrino-  Vattcanus  68. 

51.  This  MS.  was  written  in  the  year  1364,  and  contains 
all  the  New  Testament.  It  was  collated  throughout 
in  the  Revelation  by  Scholz.  The  codex  is  in  the 
Royal  Library  at  Paris,  No.  47.  According  to  Scholz's 
notation  it  is  18  in  the  Gospels,  113  in  the  Acts,  132 
in  the  Pauline  epistles. 

Upwards  of  five  hundred  cursive  MSS.  of  the  Gospels, 
ranging  in  date  from  the  tenth  to  the  sixteenth  century,  have 
been  inspected  more  or  less  cursorily,  or  at  least  mentioned. 
More  than  two  hundred  of  the  same  kind  contain  the  Acts 
and  Catholic  epistles ;  upwards  of  three  hundred  the  Pauline 
epistles ;  one  hundred  have  the  Apocalypse.  Very  few  how- 
ever have  been  properly  described  and  fully  collated.  By  far 
the  greater  number  have  been  hastily  inspected.  The  list, 
large  as  it  is,  might  be  much  increased ;  for  there  are  many  in 
the  great  public  libraries  of  England  and  the  continent  of 
Europe  as  yet  unknown.  Much  as  has  been  done  in  the  way 
of  making  known  and  collating  MSS.,  future  labourers  may 
add  greatly  to  the  stock  of  existing  materials. 


CHAPTEK  XXII. 


EVANGELISTAEIA  AND  LECTIONARIA, 

We  have  already  explained  the  nature  of  what  are  termed 
Evangelistaria^  which  are  MSS.  containing  lessons  from  the 
four  gospels  adapted  to  the  Sundays  and  festivals  in  the  year. 
Of  these  codices  a  great  many  have  been  inspected,  but  few 
carefully  collated  throughout.  Scholz  mentions  123  new  ones, 
of  which  one  only  was  collated  entire,  five  in  the  greater  part, . 
twenty-seven  in  select  places,  twenty-nine  cursorily,  and  sixty- 
one  merely  named.  These  123,  added  to  such  as  had  been 
mentioned  or  used  before  Scholz,  make  178.  Additional  ones 
have  been  discovered  and  inspected  by  Tischendorf,  of  which 
he  promises  some  account.  The  most  important  of  these 
Evangelistaria  are  those  in  uncial  characters,  of  which  about 
fifty  are  known.  Even  they  however  have  not  been  properly 
applied  to  criticism  or  thoroughly  collated. 

It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  the  exact  age  of  uncial  evangelis- 
taria, because  the  ancient  letters  were  retained  for  ecclesiastical 
purposes  several  centuries  after  the  cursive  character  had  be- 
come general.  Some  of  them  however  are  both  ancient  and 
valuable.  Two  rescript  ones  which  are  mere  fragments — one 
at  Venice,  the  other  in  the  Barberinian  Library,  are  assigned 
to  the  seventh  century.     One  which  Tischendorf  has  deposited 


326  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

in  the  Leipzig  Library  called  Tischendorfianum  V.  belongs  to 
the  eighth  or  ninth  century;  and  probably  a  few  others. 
The  greater  number  however  were  written  after  the  tenth 
century.  Most  appeared  in  the  eleventh,  twelfth,  and  thir- 
teenth centuries. 

There  is  one,  the  Carpentras  which  Tischendorf  praises  for 
the  goodness  of  its  readings,  and  which  is  undoubtedly  ancient, 
though  not  as  old  as  the  sixth  century,  nor  to  be  converted 
into  a  MS.  of  the  four  gospels,  as  it  has  been.  Another  in 
the  monastery  on  mount  Sinai  is  also  praised  by  the  same 
critic  for  its  magnificence.  To  this  may  be  added  the  cod. 
Harleianus  5598  in  the  British  Museum  which  is  a  very  splen- 
did Evangelistarium,  with  letters  gilt,  coloured,  and  ornamented, 
written  in  the  tenth  century  according  to  a  notice  in  the  last 
page;  and  the  Arundel  codex  547  in  the  British  Museum, 
which  is  also  very  splendid,  having  many  of  the  initial  letters 
beautifully  illuminated,  and  as  old  at  least  as  the  Harleianus 
if  not  older. 

In  regard  to  the  text  of  the  Evangelistaria,  it  is  substan- 
tially the  textus  receptus  or  later  Byzantine,  in  far  the  greater 
number  of  these  codices.  But  in  a  few,  the  text  is  valuable 
and  of  the  antique  type,  coinciding  with  E.  F.  G.  H.  S. 
U.  V. 

Similar  codices  or  lesson  books  taken  from  the  Acts  and 
epistles  are  called  Lectionaria  or  Lectionaries.  Fifty-eight 
of  these  stand  in  Scholz's  list.  But  few  of  them  are  written 
in  uncial  letters.  We  know  of  two  only,  one  at  Leyden 
which  contains  also  an  Evangelistarium,  in  Arabic  and  Greek, 
another  at  Treves.  To  these  may  be  added  a  small  fragment 
deposited  by  Tischendorf  in  the  library  of  Leipzig  University, 
Tischendorfianus  VI.  F.  containing  a  few  verses  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews. 

In  relation  to  the  gross  number  of  Evangelistaria  in  the 


EVANGELISTARIA   AND   LECTION  ARIA.  327 

cursive  character,  it  is  upwards  of  150.  When  to  this  are 
added  about  50  uncial  ones,  we  have  about  200  in  alb  Of 
Lectionaries  there  are  about  60,  to  which  may  be  added  three 
uncial  ones.  But  very  little  is  known  of  these  codices,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few.  They  have  not  been  fully  described 
or  collated.  The  places  where  they  are  deposited  are  given 
in  the  late  editions  of  Scholz  and  Tischendorf;  but  little 
else. 


CHAPTER   XXTII. 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  ON  MSS. 

With  regard  to  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament,  we  believe  that 
editors  of  the  Greek  Testament  from  Mill  to  Scholz  have 
not  acted  on  the  best  plan.  They  have  unnecessarily  multi- 
plied codices.  Aiming  too  much  at  number^  they  have  heaped 
together  an  immense  mass  of  materials  which  is  useless 
to  a  great  extent.  The  cursive  MSS.  in  particular  need  not 
have  claimed  so  much  attention  ;  or  at  least,  might  have 
been  postponed  till  the  older  ones  had  been  well  examined. 
But  since  the  time  of  Lachmann's  first  edition,  a  check  has 
been  put  to  the  accumulation  of  late  materials ;  and  properly  so. 
The  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  collate  the  oldest,  thoroughly 
and  accurately.  Let  their  texts  be  published  ixv  facsimile  or 
otherwise.  If  not,  they  should  be  collated  in  such  a  way  as 
that  no  future  critic  may  be  under  the  necessity  of  resorting  to 
them  again  and  re-examining  them.  The  uncial  MSS.  ought 
to  be  well  known  and  fairly  applied  to  the  purposes  of  criticism. 
All  the  rest,  or  the  great  mass  of  the  junior  ones,  may  be  dis- 
pensed with.  They  are  scarcely  needed,  because  the  uncial 
are  numerous.  At  present  they  do  nothing  but  hinder  the 
advancement  of  critical  science  by  drawing  off  to  them  time 
and  attention  which  might  be  better  devoted  to  older  docu- 
ments. A  line  should  be  drawn  somewhere,  beyond  which  an 
editor  should    not    go    in    citing   codices.      Why   resort,  for 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS   ON   MSS.  329 

example,  to  copies  of  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  centuries 
before  giving  the  readings  of  copies  belonging  to  the  fifth, 
sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth?  By  all  means  let  us  have  the 
latter  first ;  and  if  the  former  be  then  judged  necessary,  they 
may  be  produced.  The  attention  of  critical  editors  must  there- 
fore be  more  concentrated.  They  should  devote  themselves  to 
the  thorough  elucidation  of  fewer  and  selecter  materials.  How 
little  has  been  done  by  Scholz,  after  the  years  and  labour 
expended  on  MSS.  and  versions,  is  known  to  every  scholar. 
In  aiming  at  too  much,  he  did  little  that  can  be  relied  on  for 
its  accuracy.  His  collations  are  perpetually  distrusted — so 
superficial  and  hasty  were  they.  How  useless  his  critical  notes 
are,  compared  with  what  they  might  have  been,  had  he  taken 
fewer  documents  and  examined  them  well.  Hence  we  are  glad 
to  find  that  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles  proceed  in 
a  different  way,  by  leaving  very  much  out  of  view  the  great 
majority  of  MSS.  belonging  to  a  recent  age,  and  exhibiting 
with  accuracy  the  readings  of  the  oldest.  They  have  thus 
sifted  and  separated  the  materials.  ,  We  are  persuaded  that 
their  principle  is  a  right  one  ;  whatever  may  be  said  of  the 
modes  in  which  they  apply  it.  The  criticism  of  the  Greek 
Testament  has  gained  a  great  deal  in  this  way.  It  has  made 
an  important  step  in  advance  since  the  time  of  Griesbach. 
Critics  have  discovered  a  better  way  than  Scholz's  diffuse, 
perfunctory  method. 

Till  ancient  codices  of  the  Greek  Testament  have  been 
thus  satisfactorily  collated  and  applied,  we  should  deem  it 
advisable  not  to  meddle  with  Evangelistaria  and  Lectionaries. 
It  is  true  that  these  have  never  been  much  attended  to  or 
examined.  Nor  should  they,  especially  at  the  present  day, 
when  older  and  better  documents  are  not  yet  fully  known. 

In  considering  all  that  has  been  done  in  the  department  of 
MSS.,  the  number,  variety,  and  importance  of  those  described, 
with  the  array  of  readings  extracted  from  them,  the  first  idea 


330  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

that  arises  in  the  mind  is  a  feeling  of  gratitude  for  the  advan- 
tages we  enjoy.  Many  laborious,  indefatigable  men  have 
addressed  themselves  to  the  task,  repulsive  and  wearisome  as 
it  is,  with  persevering  zeal,  and  have  placed  within  our  reach 
the  readings  of  valuable  documents.  We  owe  them  our  thanks. 
But  in  examining,  comparing,  and  applying  the  extracts  thus 
furnished  there  is  great  difficulty.  Rules  are  all  but  worthless. 
Theory  can  be  of  little  avail.  The  judgment,  tact,  and  taste 
of  every  man  must  be  mainly  relied  on. 

MSS.  are  useful  in  the  first  instance  in  pointing  out  read- 
ings that  have  intruded  into  the  original  text.  By  their  help 
we  may  detect  interpolations  which  do  not  form  a  proper  part 
of  the  primitive  text.  Thus  when  they  all  agree,  or  the  great 
majority  of  them,  in  exhibiting  a  certain  reading,  there  is  good 
reason  for  attaching  weight  to  their  testimony,  and  for  suspect- 
ing any  form  of  the  text  their  concurrent  voice  does  not  sanc- 
tion. No  alteration  or  corruption  has  taken  place  where  the 
testimony  of  MSS.  is  unanimous  or  nearly  so.  There  we  may 
safely  conclude  that  the  genuine  text  is  before  us.  But  when 
they  exhibit  the  same  passage  differently,  some  change  has 
been  made  in  the  text.  There  has  been  an  interpolation, 
omission,  or  transposition  of  words.  Diversity  of  reading  in 
tlie  great  body  of  MSS.  at  a  certain  place,  indicates  the  exist- 
ence of  corruption  in  some  of  them.  Where  there  is  not 
diversity,  there  is  of  course  no  corruption.  Thus  a  collation 
of  MSS.  at  once  exhibits  corruption. 

In  restoring  passages  which  have  been  altered  from  their 
original  condition,  MSS.  must  be  used  with  caution  and  wise 
discrimination.  In  this  respect  they  are  not  so  useful  or  satis- 
factory as  some  perhaps  might  suppose. 

The  first  thing  to  be  ascertained  in  a  MS.  is  its  age. 
This  is  determined  by  the  style  of  the  letters,  uncial  or  cursive  ; 
by  the  accents,  divisions,  punctuation  marks,  marginal  accom- 
paniments,   inscriptions,    and  subscriptions,  as  well  as  other 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS   ON    MSS.  331 

circumstances  in  the  MS.  itself.  In  general  it  is  not  difficult 
to  find  out  the  true  date  or  nearly  so.  It  may  be  approached 
within  half  a  century  or  so  with  tolerable  certainty.  In  regard 
to  uncial  MSS.  the  opinions  of  the  best  critics  do  not  differ 
more  than  a  century.  Having  fixed  the  respective  dates  of 
the  MSS.  employed,  the  rule  that  the  reading  of  an  older  copy 
is  preferable  to  that  of  a  later  one,  ceteris  parihus^  comes  into 
operation.  The  nearer  a  document  approaches  the  age  of  the 
original,  it  is  natural  to  infer  that  it  has  undergone  fewer  alte- 
rations. Frequency  of  transcription  has  operated  less  in  dete- 
riorating its  text  than  in  others  of  a  later  date.  The  fewer 
hands  it  has  passed  through,  the  fewer  changes  we  suppose  to 
have  been  made  in  the  text. 

After  determining  the  age  of  a  MS.  the  next  consideration 
is  the  internal  condition  of  its  text.  There  may  be  circum- 
stances whose  tendency  is  to  lessen  the  authority  derived  from 
age.  Thus  a  later  document  which  has  certainly  been  copied 
from  a  very  ancient  one  will  have  more  value  than  an  earlier 
taken  from  an  exemplar  of  no  great  antiquity.  A  MS.  of  the 
eighth  century,  for  example,  may  have  been  immediately  tran- 
scribed from  one  of  the  fifth,  and  therefore  the  former  is  entitled 
to  greater  weight  than  one  belonging  to  the  seventh  century 
transcribed  from  an  exemplar  of  the  sixth.  The  MS.  of  the 
fifth  century  whence  that  of  the  eighth  was  derived  may  have 
been  comparatively  unknown  till  the  time  it  was  brought  forth 
from  its  obscurity  to  be  the  parent  of  another.  In  such  a  case 
the  MS.  of  the  eighth  century  may  be  considered  of  higher 
antiquity  than  the  oldest  existing  one  of  the  sixth,  because  it 
was  immediately  made  from  a  more  ancient  exemplar.  This 
exception  to  the  rule  that  the  older  the  MS.  the  better  it  is,  is 
however  more  apparent  than  real.  It  can  scarcely  be  called 
a  real  exception.  The  fact  can  only  be  discovered  from  internal 
evidence. 

Another  circumstance  which  modifies  the  authority  conse- 


332  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 

quent  upon  age  alone  is  the  degree  of  accuracy  with  which  the 
MS.  was  written.  A  copyist  may  have  been  very  ignorant  or 
negligent.  His  carelessness  may  be  apparent.  In  proportion 
to  the  care  or  negligence  he  used  will  be  the  authority  of  the 
document.  It  is  an  important  thing  in  the  estimate  of  a  MS.  to 
find  that  it  was  written  with  a  laudable  endeavour  after  accu- 
racy of  transcription  from  the  original  source. 

Still  more  depends  on  the  characteristic  readings  of  a  codex. 
Good  readings  constitute  the  best  criterion  of  its  goodness. 
These  imply  slight  faults  and  variations,  as  well  as  few  depar- 
tures from  the  primitive  text.  They  also  imply  the  existence 
of  a  good  copy  at  the  basis  of  the  text.  As  to  the  principles 
on  which  a  good  reading  is  to  be  determined,  they  are  laid 
down  in  another  place. 

In  determining  the  character  of  a  MS.  it  is  not  unusual 
to  refer  to  the  country  where  it  was  written,  as  a  fact  not 
to  be  overlooked.  But  this  is  not  always  readily  discovered. 
Critics  are  divided  in  regard  to  this  point.  Some  prefer 
eastern,  others  western  ones.  Thus  Scholz  gives  the  prefer- 
ence to  the  former ;  Lachmann,  Griesbach,  and  others  to  the 
latter.  Little  however  can  be  made  of  mere  locality  apart 
from  other  considerations.  Probably  the  Egyptian  or  Alex- 
andrine are  the  best.  But  it  should  be  observed  here  as 
affecting  country,  especially  Alexandria,  where  there  were  so 
many  learned  men  in  the  early  times  of  Christianity,  that  the 
acquaintance  of  a  copyist  with  the  language  of  his  MS.  is  not 
necessarily  or  always  an  excellence.  His  very  knowledge 
might  prompt  him  to  alter  places  with  the  design  of  improving 
them.  This  indeed  is  a  thing  which  cannot  be  always  ascer- 
tained ;  and  therefore  it  throws  a  degree  of  uncertainty  over 
passages  occurring  in  MSS.  of  a  particular  kind. 

Thus  a  genuine  reading  cannot  be  determined  by  the  mere 
antiquity  of  one  or  more  documents  in  which  it  is  found. 
Antiquity  is  doubtless  valuable  as  affording  a  presumption  in 


GENERAL    OBSERVATIONS   ON    MSS.  333 

favour  of  the  text's  purity  ;  but  many  modifying  circumstances 
must  be  observed. 

The  number  of  MSS.  in  which  a  particular  reading  is  found 
should  not  be  overlooked.  This  is  an  obvious  and  natural 
rule.  The  reading  of  the  greater  number  of  MSS.  is  prefer- 
able to  that  of  the  less  number.  But  the  canon  often  needs 
and  receives  limitation.  Mere  majority  of  copies  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  certify  a  reading,  or  to  condemn  it.  Several  may 
have  been  copied  from  one  and  the  same  codex,  and  therefore 
they  are  only  entitled  to  one  voice.  They  can  prove  no  more 
than  that  the  reading  which  they  all  exhibit  was  found  in  their 
common  exemplar.  Hence  the  rule  has  been  laid  down,  that 
the  majority  of  MSS.  belonging  to  different  classes,  or  in  other 
words,  to  different  recensions,  can  alone  decide  in  favour  of  a 
reading.  We  do  not  see  however  how  this  can  be  usefully 
applied.  The  entire  subject  of  recensions  is  so  insecure  and 
intangible,  that  nothing  can  be  built  upon  it.  It  is  not  easy, 
even  in  Griesbach's  view,  to  determine  the  recension  to  which 
every  codex  belongs.  The  most  eminent  scholars  differ  there. 
The  very  same  MS,  is  said  to  incline  to  different  recensions 
in  different  parts ;  for  example,  to  one  in  the  Gospels ;  to 
another  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epistles.  In  others  the  cha- 
racteristic readings  of  more  recensions  than  one  are  com- 
mingled, rendering  it  difficult  to  decide  which  preponderates 
in  the  text.  When  such  things  are  affirmed  of  a  codex,  it 
will  be  needful  to  look  whether  it  has  received  alterations 
from  later  hands,  or  whether  it  be  not  derived  from  various 
exemplars.  Indeed  all  MSS.  require  to  be  looked  at  with 
this  object,  for  it  is  not  uncommon  to  find  letters  retouched, 
in  which  case  they  have  sometimes  received  a  different  form 
from  what  they  had  at  first,  being  thus  entirely  changed ;  or 
to  find  defects  supplied  by  one  or  more  persons  different  from 
the  original  copyist.  Many  codices  have  been  altered  here 
and  there  in  their  progress  downward  from  remote  times. 
Things  have  been  taken  into  their  text  which  did  not  stand 


334  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

there  originally.  As  to  recensions,  we  doubt  greatly  whether 
MSS.  can  be  referred  to  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  assist  in 
judging  of  the  value  of  readings  found  in  individual  copies. 

The  authority  of  such  codices  as  have  been  called  critici 
is  not  equal  to  that  of  others  bearing  the  same  age.  Having 
been  compiled  from  several  MSS.,  instead  of  being  faithful 
transcripts  of  single  copies,  they  cannot  be  equivalent  in  good- 
ness to  such  as  owe  their  existence  to  one  parent.  These 
eclectic  copies  may  contain  good  and  ancient  readings,  without 
affording  a  criterion  to  judge  of  the  current  text  at  the  time 
and  ])lace  they  first  appeared  in. 

Lectionaries  or  lesson-books  intended  for  public  ecclesias- 
tical use  are  not  placed  in  the  same  rank  with  other  codices  as 
to  value,  because  they  were  more  exposed  to  alteration.  They 
must  have  been  oftener  copied,  and  therefore  they  were  more 
liable  to  errors  of  transcription. 

On  the  whole,  the  right  of  judging  on  these  points  be- 
longs to  those  who  have  carefully  inspected  MSS.  The 
eyes  must  be  practised  in  the  various  forms  of  letters ;  and 
the  mind  must  be  habituated  to  the  investigation  of  critical 
questions.  General  observations  may  lead  the  novice  to  think 
that  the  determination  of  the  right  reading  is  an  easy  matter 
in  most  cases ;  but  practice  will  soon  shew  the  reverse.  Though 
MSS.  are  the  most  important  class  of  materials  for  bringing 
back  the  New  Testament  text  to  its  pristine  state,  even  they 
are  not  so  definite  or  authoritative  as  we  could  wish.  In 
detecting  corruptions  their  great  utility  is  unquestionable. 
There  they  are  of  primary  and  preeminent  value.  But  in  replac- 
ing the  true  readings  they  are  of  less  assistance  of  themselves. 
Yet  they  are  the  most  credible  witnesses  for  the  express  words 
of  the  original  writers,  though  they  do  not  satisfy  all  expec- 
tation. And  to  them  must  all  editors  of  the  original  look  as 
the  basis  of  that  text  which  came  from  the  hands  of  the 
inspired  authors.  A  reading  which  occurs  in  no  MS.  must  be 
powerfully  attested  in  another  way  to  recommend  it  as  time. 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 


QUOTATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN 
ANCIENT  WRITERS. 

The  third  source  of  textual  criticisni  consists  of  quotations  or 
extracts  made  from  the  New  Testament  by  the  fathers.  We 
shall  begin  with  Greek  writers. 

1.  Clement   of  B,ome  wrote    an  epistle  to  the  church   at 

Corinthj  in  which  are  many  references  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament.    It  belongs  to  the  close  of  the  second  century. 

2.  Ignatius  of  Antioch  is  supposed  to  have  written  seven 

epistles ;  at  least  seven  have  been  circulated  in  his 
name.  But  it  is  highly  probable  but  only  three  of 
them  are  genuine,  and  that  too,  not  as  they  exist  even 
in  the  shorter  Greek  recension,  but  as  they  are  found 
in  an  ancient  Syriac  version  published  by  Cureton. 
They  afford  very  little  assistance  in  settling  the  Greek 
text  of  the  New  Testament. 

3.  We  have  already  spoken  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  belonged, 

as  well  as  the  preceding  writers,  to  the  second  century. 
It  is  likely  that  lie  quotes  the  Gospels  and  Epistles, 
but  in  a  peculiar  way.  Two  apologies  and  the  dialogue 
with  Trypho  the  Jew  are  admitted  as  authentic ;  others 
are  disputed. 

4.  Irenaeus    bishop    of  Lyons   wrote  five    books    against 


336  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

heresies,  most  of  wliicli  are  onlj  extant  in  a  Latin 
translation.  Hence  his  quotations  are  serviceable  for 
the  correction  of  the  old  Latin  version,  the  versio  vetus, 
which  the  translator  followed,  rather  than  for  the  re- 
vision of  the  Greek  text.  If  we  compare  the  few  re- 
maining Greek  fragments  with  the  Peshito,  we  may 
perceive  that  the  Asiatic  text  was  bj  no  means  uniform. 
It  differed  even  at  that  time  in  different  copies.  The 
best  edition  of  his  works  is  that  of  Stieren. 
The  elders  or  seniors  spoken  of  in  Irenaeus  may  be 
distinguished  from  himself  in  relation  to  the  text. 
Most  of  their  fragments  exist  only  in  Latin.  They 
were  collected  by  Eouth,*  and  published  separately. 
(Seniores  apud  Ircnaeum.) 

5.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  wrote  an  apology  for  the  Christian 

religion  in  three  books  to  Antolycus.  His  citations 
are  very  inexact,  as  they  are  almost  always  made  from 
memory. 

6.  Marcion  was  bom  in  Pontus,  and  occupies  a  chief  place 

among  the  heretics  of  the  church.  Fragments  of  his 
works  exist  in  Epiphanius  and  Tertullian,  which  were 
collected  and  published  by  Hahn.f  But  Hahn's  work 
needs  now  to  be  supplemented  and  corrected.  It  will 
be  seen  from  former  remarks  that  Marcion's  readings 
should  be  employed  with  great  caution. 

7.  From  the  fragments  of  Valentinus  and  what  is  said  of 

the  Valentinians,  some  readings  have  also  been  derived. 
We  learn  their  opinions  however  only  in  the  works  of 
Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  Origen. 

8.  In  like  manner  Heracleon  the  Gnostic,  one  of  Valenti- 

nus's  followers,  may  be  of  use.  We  know  his  treatment 
of  the  text  only  from  the  fragments  in  Origen's  Com- 

*  Reliquiae  Sacrae,  vol.  i.  p.  41,  et  seq.  first  edition, 
t  Das  Evangelium  Marcion's  in  seiner  ursprunglicher  Gestalt,  u.  s.  w. 


QUOTATIONS   OP   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  337 

mentary  on  John,  which  should  be  received  with  cau- 
tion, for  it  is  not  likely  that  all  Origen's  complaints 
and  accusations  against  Heracleon  are  well  founded. 
9.  The  epistle  of  Barnabas  furnishes  very  small  assistance 
in  revising  the  text.  It  has  been  quoted  however  for 
this  purpose. 

10.  There  is  an  encyclical  letter  of  the  church  at   Smyrna 

respecting  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  which  has  also 
been  applied  to  criticism.  It  is  printed  in  Hefele's 
edition  of  the  apostolic  fathers,  and  elsewhere. 

11.  An  epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians  contains  nume- 

rous quotations  from  and  allusions  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  part  of  it  exists  only  in  Latin.  It  is  also 
contained  in  Hefele's  edition. 

12.  Tatian  a  native  of  Syria  or  Assyria,  wi'ote  many  works, 

of  which  the  only  extant  one  is  the  treatise  rrfog  "EXXyimg. 
In  this  however  there  is  little  that  can  be  used  in  the 
criticism  of  the  text.  Unfortunately  his  Diatessaron  or 
Harmony  of  the  Gospels  was  early  lost.  He  is  said  to 
have  rejected  and  mutilated  some  of  tlie  New  Testa- 
ment writings. 

13.  Theodotus  we  know  as  a  writer  only  by  a  treatise  pro- 

fessing to  be  excerpts  from  him,  printed  in  the  second 
volume  of  Potter's  edition  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus. 
As  to  the  person  who  made  the  extracts,  whether  Cle- 
ment or  some  other,  nothing  is  known.  The  treatise 
contains  a  number  of  citations  from  the  gospels,  but  in 
such  a  way  as  does  not  shew  what  readings  Theodotus 
had  in  his  MS.  Griesbach's  collation  of  Clement  in- 
cludes the  excerpts  of  Theodotus. 

14.  Tlie  work  called  "  the  Testaments  of  the  twelve  patriarchs" 

is  one  of  the  early  apocryphal  writings.  Its  use  in 
criticism  is  but  small. 

15.  Ptolemy  the  Gnostic  wrote  an  epistle  to  Flora  preserved 

in  Epiphanius.     It  contains  some   citations  from  the 
VOL.  IT.  Z 


338  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

New  Testament,  but  they  appear  to  have  been  made 
from  memory.  And  Stieren  has  endeavoured  to  shew 
that  the  letter  was  not  written  by  one  person,  but  two.* 
The  work  entitled  T/Vr/$  eocpia  preserved  in  Coptic 
and  attributed  to  him,  is  probably  spurious.  It  is  now 
published. 

16.  Athenagoras,  an  Athenian  by  birth,  and  teacher  in  the 

school  at  Alexandria,  is  the  author  of  an  apology  for 
Christianity  and  a  treatise  on  the  resurrection.  His 
citations  in  them  from  the  New  Testament  are  few 
and  unimportant. 

17.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  wrote  much  that  is  now  valuable 

in  relation  to  the  New  Testament  text.  Although  he 
was  often  misled  by  his  memory  in  quoting  passages, 
yet  he  doubtless  followed  his  MS.  in  many  places. 
The  frequent  agreement  between  his  readings  and  those 
of  the  old  Latin  version  has  been  often  noticed.  Gries- 
bach  made  a  collation  of  his  works  from  the  index  in 
Potter's  edition.  He  does  not  profess  however  to  have 
read  them  throughout  for  the  purpose. 
These  are  the  writers  and  works  belonging  to  the  second 
century  cited  in  critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. The  most  prominent  and  important  are  Irenaeus, 
Justin  Martyr,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  Tlie  rest 
might  be  omitted  with  very  little  disadvantage. 


THIRD  CENTURY. 

18.  Origen  is  in  many  respects  the  leading  theological  writer 
of  the  third  century.  Griesbach  made  a  very  careful 
collation  of  his  works  for  the  purpose  of  New  Testa- 
ment criticism,  in  his  Symholae  Criticae,  vol.  ii.  Many 
of  his  writings  exist  only  in  an  old  Latin  version.  In 
*  De  Ptolemaei  Gnostici  ad  Floram  epist.  Jenae,  1843. 


QUOTATIONS   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  339 

these  Latin  portions  Griesbach's  collation  is  very  im- 
perfect. It  is  true  that  the  Latin  interpreter  of  Origen 
should  be  quoted  for  the  old  Latin  version  rather  than 
for  Origen  ;  but  even  in  this  respect  the  readings  of 
the  Latin  are  valuable.  Li  the  Corinthian  epistles,  the 
commentary  of  Riickert  will  help  to  supply  the  colla- 
tion made  by  Griesbach  from  De  la  Rue's  edition  of 
this  father.  Buttmann  in  Lachmann's  larger  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament  has  also  supplied  and  corrected 
Griesbach's  labours  in  some  things.  There  is  little 
doubt  that  Origen  had  various  Greek  MSS.,  and 
attended  to  the  text  more  closely  than  any  of  his  pre- 
decessors ;  but  he  generally  wrote  in  haste,  or  rather 
dictated  to  others  who  wrote  down  his  words. 

19.  Fragments  of  the  works  of  Ammonius,  an  Alexandrine, 

exist  only  in  Catenae. 

20.  Archelaus  was  a  Mesopotamian  bishop  who  held  a  dispu- 

taiion  with  Manes.  Most  of  the  fragments  of  it  exist 
only  in  Latin,  and  are  unimportant.  They  are  con- 
tained in  Routh's  Reliquiae  Sacrae,  vol.  iv. 
2L  The  work  called  the  "  Apostolic  Canons,"  published  in 
Cotelerius's  edition  of  the  Apostolic  fathers  is  of  little 
use  in  criticism. 

22.  The  "  Apostolic  constitutions  "  contained  in  the   same 

work  are  of  more  utility. 

23.  There  is  a  "  Dialogue  against  the  jMarcionites,"  printed 

in  the  Benedictine  edition  of  Origen's  works  which 
has  been  applied  to  this  subject.  It  is  unimpor- 
tant. 

24.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  has  several  readings  which  have 

been  quoted.  The  remaining  fragments  of  his  works 
are  published  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  iii.  and 
Routh's  Reliquiae  Sacrae,  vols.  ii.  and  iv. 

25.  Hippolytus,  a  presbyter  of  Antioch,  who  in  Rome  attached 


340  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

himself  to  the  Novatian  party,  was  the  author  of  nume- 
rous writings,  containing  many  New  Testament  quota- 
tions. In  his  extant  works  the  Apocalypse  is  most 
quoted. 

26.  Methodius  was  bishop  of  Tyre.     There  are  only  frag- 

ments of  his  works  remaining, 

27.  Petrus  or  Peter  of  Alexandria.     There  are  only  fragments 

of  his  writings  preserved  which  have  been  published 
by  Galland.  in  his  Bibliotheca,  vol.  iv.  and  Eouth, 
Reliquiae  Sacrae,  vol.  iii.  They  contain  a  good 
number  of  quotations  not  of  much  value. 

29.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  bishop  of  Neo-Caesarea  in  Pontus. 

His  published  writings  do  not  contain  much  that  is 
useful  in  the  criticism  of  the  text. 

30.  Porphyry  wrote  against  Christianity,  but  his  work  was 

destroyed.  The  extracts  preserved  by  Eusebius, 
Jerome,  and  others,  contain  very  little  that  can  be 
applied  to  textual  criticism. 
The  principal  writer  of  this  century  is  Origen,  whose  works 
are  far  more  valuable  than  all  the  rest  together.  Indeed 
the  others  might  easily  be  dispensed  with. 

IN  THE   FOURTH  CENTURY. 

31.  The  works  of  Athanasius  bishop   of  Alexandria  have 

many  verbal  quotations  from  the  New  Testament, 
which  shew  the  Alexandrine  condition  of  the  text  at 
his  time.  They  seldom  agree  with  the  textus  rece/ptus. 
Works  which  have  been  falsely  attributed  to  him,  in 
both  Greek  and  Latin,  are  cited  under  the  appellation 
of  Pseudo- Athanasius. 

32.  Amphiloclnus  of  Iconium  wrote  various  treatises,  some  of 

which  have  been  lost.  Those  short  pieces  and  frag- 
ments published  as  his  by  Combefis  (Paris  1 644,  folio) 


QUOTATIONS   OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  341 

and  Galland.  (Biblioth.  vol.  vi.)  are  suspicious.  It 
would  seem  that  he  quoted  from  memory,  or  used  Con- 
stantinopolitan  MSS.  only. 

33.  Antony  was  an  Egyptian  monk.      His  ojjuscula^  trans- 

lated from  the  Arabic  into  Latin,  and  published  by 
Galland.  (vol.  iv.)  contain  several  quotations  from  the 
New  Testament. 

34.  Apollinaris    the    younger    of    Laodicea   wrote   various 

commentaries  which  are  mentioned  in  Greek  catenae. 
A  few  fragments  are  all  that  remain. 
o6.  Arius  wrote  a  letter  respecting  his  views  to  Eusebius, 
which  is  extant.     But  it  contains  little  available  for 
the  criticism  of  the  text. 

36.  Asterius  of  Cappadocia  wrote  comments  on  Scripture,  and 

tracts  in  favour  of  Arianism,  of  which  only  fragments 
remain,  printed  by  Galland.  (vol.  iii.)  He  generally 
gives  the  sense  of  Scripture  without  adhering  to  the 
words. 

37.  Basil,  surnamed  the  great,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  wrote  a 

great  many  works,  most  of  which  still  remain,  con- 
sisting of  discourses,  homilies,  letters,  &c.  But  the 
mode  in  which  he  referred  to  Scripture  is  so  loose  that 
we  can  scarcely  tell  the  state  of  the  text  as  he  read  it. 
His  quotations  are  free,  not  literal. 

38.  Caesarius  of  Constantinople,  brother  of  Gregory  Nazian- 

zenus,  is  said  to  have  written  four  dialogues  on  195 
questions  in  theology.  It  is  doubtful  however  whether 
those  published  be  his  (Galland.  Biblioth.  vol.  vi.) 

39.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  wrote  lectures,  &c.,  theological  and 

didactic,  in  which  the  sacred  text  is  largely  interwoven. 
But  he  seems  for  the  most  part  to  have  relied  on  me- 
mory ;  and  his  citations  are  of  such  a  kind  as  to  be  of 
little  use  in  criticism, 

40.  Didymus  of  Alexandria  wrote  commentaries  and  many 


342  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

other  works,  of  which  few  survive,  and  those  mostly  in 
a  Latin  translation.  His  blindness  from  youth  com- 
pelled him  to  quote  Scripture  from  memory.  Guerike 
has  collected  readings  from  two  of  his  works.* 

41.  Of  the  writings  of  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  only  abstracts  and 

extracts  remain,  preserved  by  Marius  Mercator,  Pho- 
tius,  and  others. 

42.  Dorotheus  of  Tyre  wrote  various  works,  fragments  of 

which  are  found  in  catenae.  His  readings  agree  with 
the  received  text. 
4.3.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  is  the  author  of  orations  or  ser- 
mons, epistles,  and  poems.  In  these  he  seldom  quotes 
the  New  Testament.  His  readings  agree  for  the  most 
part  with  those  of  Gregory  Nyssene. 

44.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  younger  brother  of  Basil  the  great,  is 

the  author  of  numerous  discourses  and  polemic  treatises, 
published  at  Paris  1638,  3  vols,  folio,  and  by  Galland. 
in  his  Bibliotheca  (vol.  iv.)  His  works  abound  with 
quotations  from  Scripture,  most  of  which  are  very  free. 
Hence  criticism  can  derive  little  assistance  from  his 
citations. 

45.  Epiphanius  was  bishop  of  Salamis  in  Cyprus,  and  wrote 

chiefly  against  heresies.  The  best  edition  is  still  that 
of  Petavius  published  at  Paris  in  1722,  folio.  It  is  not 
very  often  that  he  quotes  the  New  Testament  literally. 

46.  Ephrem  a  Syrian  bishop  and  voluminous  writer  of  com- 

mentaries on  Scripture,  wrote  in  his  native  language, 
but  his  works  were  early  translated  into  Greek.  They 
have  not  been  used  as  yet  for  critical  pm-poses  as  they 
ought. 

47.  Eusebius    bishop    of   Caesarea   wrote    many   important 

works,  of  which  his  Preparatio  evangelical  Demonstratio 
evangelica^  and  Historia  ecclesiastica^  are  best  known. 
*  De  Schola  quae  Alexandriae  floruit,  catechetica,  part  ii.  p.  33. 


QUOTATIONS   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  343 

His  quotations  from  the  New  Testament  are  numerous, 
and  were  apparently  made  with  care.  There  is  little 
doubt  that  he  used  Alexandrine  copies  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  or  copies  which  had  undergone  some  revi- 
sion there. 

48.  Eusebius  bishop  of  Emesa  was  supposed  by  Augusti  to 

be  the  author  of  three  discourses  which  the  latter  pub- 
lished in  1829,  and  which  Scholz  treats  as  his.  But 
Thilo  proved  that  they  belong  to  a  later  person  of  the 
same  name.  The  same  critic  makes  it  probable  that 
the  two  books  De  fide  adv.  Sahellium,  printed  by  Sir- 
mond  among  the  opuscula  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea, 
belong  to  the  present  writer.  They  have  not  yet  been 
employed  for  critical  purposes,  nor  are  they  of  any  con- 
sequence in  this  respect.* 

49.  Eustathius  patriarch  of  Antioch  wrote  a  work  against  the 

Arians,  of  which  only  fragments  remain,  published  by 
Galland.  (vol.  iv.) 

50.  Evagrius,  a  native  of  Pontus,  afterwards  deacon,  and 

monk  in  the  Nitrian  desert,  wrote  various  works,  of 
which  some  are  extant  only  in  a  Latin  version,  others 
in  fragments.  All  are  published  by  Galland.  in  tlie 
seventh  volume  of  the  Bibliotheca.  As  far  as  we  can 
judge,  his  text  is  substantially  the  Constantinopolitan. 

51.  Hesychius  was  presbyter  at  Jerusalem,  and  wrote  a  great 

many  works,  some  of  which  are  extant  entire,  others  in 
fragments,  while  others  have  been  lost.  But  his  writ- 
ings have  not  been  much  applied  to  the  criticism  of  the 
text. 

52.  Macarius,  an  Egyptian  monk,  is  the  author  of  a  number 

of  homilies  or  discourses  published  by  Pritius  at 
Leipzig  in  1714.     Many  fragments  are  also  preserved 

*  See  Gieseler's  Compendium  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i.  p.  357 
(English  translation.) 


344  BIBLICAL    CKITICISM. 

in  catenae  and  printed  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca  (vol. 
vii.)     Their  authorship  is  not  well  established. 

53.  Meletius  of  Antioch  does  not  seem  to  have  written  much. 

What  has  been  preserved  of  his  works  is  contained  in 
Galland's  Bibliotheca  (vol.  v.) 

54.  Pamphilus  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine  wrote  an  apology 

for  Origen  in  five  books,  only  the  first  of  which  is 
extant  in  the  Latin  translation  of  Eufinus.  It  is  in 
E-outh's  Reliquiae  Sacrae  (vol.  iv.)  His  citations 
agree  with  Origen.  The  Pamphili  passio  printed  by 
Galland.  in  his  Bibliotheca  (vol.  iv.)  also  affords  some 
readings. 

55.  Serapion  was  bishop  of  Thmuis  in  Egypt,  and  wrote  a 

work  against  the  Manichaeans  printed  in  Latin  in 
Galland's  Bibliotheca  (vol.  v.)  It  contains  readings 
worth  noting. 

56.  Theodore  bishop  of  Heraclea  in  Thrace  wrote  various 

expositions  and  commentaries,  fragments  of  which 
exist  only  in  catenae.  His  citations  belong  to  what 
has  been  termed  the  Constantinopolitan  recension. 

57.  Theodore   of    Mopsuestia  was  a  distinguished  biblical 

commentator,  but  most  of  his  writings  have  been  lost. 
Various  fragments  have  been  published,  and  in  recent 
times  several  complete  works  and  fragments  by  Angelo 
Mai,  Fritzsche,  and  others.  As  yet  they  have  scarcely 
been  applied  to  textual  criticism,  where  they  would 
doubtless  be  of  more  assistance  than  many  other  writ- 
ings of  the  fourth  century. 

58.  Of  Theodore   the  Egyptian,  belonging  to  Pelusium,  a 

few  unimportant  fragments  are  all  that  remain, 

59.  Theophilus   of    Alexandria   wrote   various    letters   and 

episcopal  charges,  published  by  Galland.  in  the  Biblio- 
theca (vol.  vii.)  There  is  very  little  quotation  of 
Scripture  in  them. 


QUOTATIONS   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  345 

60.  Timotheus  of  Alexandria  wrote  some  unimportant  works 

which  are  now  lost,  except  a  few  fragments. 

61.  Titus  of  Bostra  wrote  three  books  against  the  Mani- 

chaeans,  extant  in  a  Latin  translation  in  Galland's 
Bibliotheca  (vol.  v.) 

62.  Chrysostom  wrote  voluminously  on  the  New  Testament. 

His  commentaries  are  important.  But  great  caution 
must  be  used  in  applying  them  to  criticism.  He  was 
more  of  the  orator  than  the  grammarian  or  expositor ; 
and  therefore  neglected  the  exact  words  of  Scripture. 
He  has  fallen  into  many  mistakes  from  trusting  to  me- 
mory, from  aiming  at  elegance  rather  than  accuracy, 
and  from  haste,  impetuosity  of  mind,  or  carelessness. 
There  is  little  doubt  also,  that  earlier  and  later  read- 
ings are  mixed  up  in  his  homilies  as  now  printed. 
He  has  suffered  greatly  from  transcribers  at  different 
times,  who  altered  his  Scripture  quotations  according  to 
the  text  current  in  their  time.  This  can  be  shewn  in 
part  from  catenae.  Chrysostom  is  also  largely  indebted 
to  Origen  and  perhaps  others,  whose  remarks  he  copied. 
The  best  edition  of  his  works  is  that  of  Montfaucon. 
The  editor  who  has  contributed  most  to  a  good  colla- 
tion of  this  celebrated  father  is  ]\Iatthaei,  who  has  given 
extracts  from  MSS.  But  much  remains  to  be  done  ; 
though  Tischendorf  has  since  carefully  examined 
Chrysostom's  readings  in  the  greater  part  of  the  Acts 
and  the  Pauline  epistles. 
The  chief  writers  of  this  century  whose  works  are  available 
for  critical  purposes  are  Athanasius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  Epiphanius,  Eusebius  of  Caesa- 
rea,  Ephrem  Syrus,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Chry- 
sostom. These  afford  a  wide  field  for  collation ;  and 
most  of  them  would  repay  the  labour  of  extensive  exa- 
mination.    All  the  rest  might  be  neglected  without  loss. 


346  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 


IN  THE  FIFTH  CENTUKY. 


63.  Antiochus  was  bishop  of  Ptolemais  in  Phenicia.     Frag- 

ments of  his  works  are  quoted  in  catenae. 

64.  Basil,  bishop  of  Seleucia,  is  the  author  of  orations  written 

in  a  very  florid  style.  Little  aid  in  criticism  can  be 
derived  from  them. 

65.  Cyril   of    Alexandria   wi'ote   expositions   of    Scripture, 

polemical  treatises,  sermons,  and  letters,  which  contain 
many  citations  from  Scripture.  Vater  has  shown  his 
adherence  to  the  Alexandrine  recension.*  His  works 
were  published  by  John  Aubert  in  7  parts  folio,  1638, 
Paris. 

66.  Marcus  Diadochus,  probably  an  Egyptian  bishop,  author 

of  a  treatise  against  the  Arians,  printed  in  Latin  in 
Galland's  Bibliotheca  (vol.  v.)  Those  who  identify  him 
with  Diadochus  bishop  of  Photice,  place  him  in  the  fifth 
century.  But  though  even  Tischendorf  recently  does 
so,  we  believe  that  he  is  in  error.  He  belongs  to  the 
fourth  century. 

67.  Eutherius  bishop  or  archbishop  of  Tyanea  is  author  of 

some  epistles  and  sermons  containing  several  citations 
from  the  Greek  Testament. 

68.  Euthalius,  deacon   at  Alexandria,  wrote  an  analytical 

introduction  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  pub- 
lished by  Zacagni  at  Rome  in  1698,  4to.  It  is  useful 
in  the  criticism  of  the  text. 

69.  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  an  island  in  the  Propontis,  wrote 

an  ecclesiastical  history.  It  is  not  of  much  use  in 
criticism. 

70.  Gennadius  of  Constantinople  is  often  quoted  in  catenae. 

71.  Isidore  of  Pelusium  was  a  voluminous  writer,  as  we  have 
*  Spicilegium  ad  usurn  patrum  Graecorum  iu  critica  N.  T.  1810. 


QUOTATIONS   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  347 

still  2013  excerpts  from  his  letters.  Many  citations 
from  the  New  Testament  occur  in  them ;  but  none 
which  are  not  found  in  later  Alexandrine  authors. 
The  letters  are  divided  into  five  books,  and  were  all 
published  by  the  Jesuit  Schott  at  Paris,  1638,  folio. 

72.  Diadochus  of  Photice,  a  disciple  of  Chrysostom,  wrote  a 

few  tracts  on  practical  piety,  printed  in  Galland.  (vol. 
viii.) 

73.  Nestorius  of  Constantinople  wrote  various  works,  most  of 

which,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  extracts,  have 
perished.  Few  citations  in  these  fragments  are  of  much 
value  in  criticism. 

74.  Nilus  of  Constantinople,  afterwards  an  Egyptian  monk, 

wrote  a  great  many  epistles  and  some  treatises,  which 
were  published  by  Suares  at  Rome,  1673  folio.  They 
contain  many  quotations  from  the  New  Testament,  but 
very  few  literal  ones. 

75.  Nonnus  of  Egypt  wrote  a  paraphrase  or  poetic  version  of 

John's  gospel,  which  has  sometimes  been  quoted  in  the 
criticism  of  the  text.  But  it  is  of  little  use  in  this 
respect. 

76.  Theodoret  bishop  of  Cyrus  was  a  distinguished  writer  in 

this  century.  Among  his  works  and  commentaries,  his 
comments  on  Paul's  epistles  belong  to  the  criticism  of 
the  New  Testament  text.  His  readings  however  pre- 
sent little  that  is  peculiar,  because  he  was  dependent  on 
Origen,  and  still  more  on  Chrysostom.  They  agree  on 
the  whole  with  the  oriental  class.  The  best  edition  is 
the  Halle  one  of  Schulze  and  Noesselt,  1768-1774  8vo. 

77.  Philo  of  Carpathus.     What  remains  of  his  writings  is 

printed  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca  (vol.  ix.) 

78.  Proclus  bishop   of  Constantinople  wrote   sermons    and 

epistles  published  by  Ricardi,  and  also  by  Galland. 


348  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

(vol.  ix.)     Some  assistance  in  criticism  may  be  derived 
from  them. 
79    Socrates  of  Constantinople  is  the  author  of  an  ecclesias- 
tical history  in  seven  books.     It  is  however  of  very 
little  use  in  criticism. 

80.  Sozomen  of  Constantinople  is  likewise  the  author  of  an 

ecclesiastical  history  in  nine  books,  which  has  been 
quoted  a  few  times  in  the  criticism  of  the  text. 

81.  Theodotus,  bishop  of  Ancyra  in  Galatia,  is  known  chiefly 

as  a  polemic  writer.  His  extant  works  contain  various 
citations  from  the  New  Testament  (Gallaud.  Bib. 
vol.  ix.) 

82.  Victor  of  Antioch  wrote  a  commentary  on  Mark's  gospel. 

His  citations  of  the  text  do  not  commonly  differ  from 

those  of  the  received  edition. 
Here  we  may  add  the  Synopsis  of  Sacred  Scripture  printed 

with  the  works  of  Athanasius,  as  it  probably  belongs 

to  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.      The  readings  are 

Alexandrine. 
The  most  important  writers  for  critical  purposes  in  this 

century  are  Theodoret,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Euthalius, 

and  Isidore  of  Pelusium.     The  rest  are  of  comparatively 

little  consequence. 

IN  THE  SIXTH  CENTURY. 

83.  Anastasius  Sinaita.     Under  this  name  various  writings, 

consisting  of  Questions  and  Answers,  Homilies,  &c.  are 
published  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca  (vol.  xii.)  The 
Scriptural  quotations  in  them  are  mostly  made  from 
memory. 

84.  Andreas  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  wrote  a  com- 

mentary on  the  Apocalypse,  which  is  commonly  printed 


QUOTATIONS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  349 

along  with  Chrysostora's  works.      The   most  careful 
collation  of  it  was  made  by  Tischendorf. 

85.  Cosmas,  commonly  termed  Indicopleustes,  an  Alexan- 

drine monk,  wrote  a  work  on  Christian  tcypograjphy  in 
twelve  books.     His  readings  are  of  com-se  Alexandrine. 

86.  For  the  remains  of  the  writings  of  Eiilogius  bishop  of 

Alexandria,  which  are  of  little  consequence,  we  refer 
to  Galland's  Bibliotheca  (vol.  xii.) 

87.  Macedonius  bishop  of  Constantinople.      It  is  said   by 

Liberatus  that  he  corrupted  the  gospels  and  1  Tim.  iii. 
16. 

88.  Procopius  of  Gaza  wrote  many  commentaries   on   the 

Scriptures,  but  they  are  mostly  on  the  Old  Testament, 
and  mere  compilations  from  preceding  authors. 

89.  The  commentaries  of  Severus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  are 

preserved  only  in  fragments,  in  the  catenae  patrum. 
The  commentary  of  Andreas  of  Cappadocia  is  alone  of 
importance  in  this  century.     The  other  writers  are  of 
very  small  utility, 

IN  THE  SEVENTH  CENTURY. 

90.  Andreas,  archbishop  of  Crete,  wrote  Homilies,  Hymns, 

&c.  published  by  Combefis  at  Paris,  1644  folio.  The 
Scriptural  citations  in  them  are  neither  numerous  nor 
important. 

91.  Leontius  of  Byzantium   wrote  a  number  of  polemical 

treatises.  They  are  printed  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca 
(vol.  xii.) 

92.  Maximus,  a  monk  at  Chrysopolis  near  Constantinople, 

wrote  a  great  number  of  small  treatises,  polemic  and 
dogmatic,  moral  and  monastic,  besides  some  commen- 
taries, published  by  Combefis  at  Paris  1675,  in  two  folio 
volumes.     His  readings  belong  to  the  eastern  class. 


350  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

93.  Tlialassius,  monk  in  the  desert  of  Libya,  wrote  several 

tracts,   of  little  use    in   criticism.      He   is  quoted   in 

catenae. 
To  this  century  also  belongs  the  Paschal  or  Alexandrine 

Chronicle,  last  edited  by  Dindorf  at  Bonn,  1832.     Its 

readings  are  of  course  Alexandrine. 
Maximus  is  the  chief  writer  in  this  century  for  critical 

purposes. 

IN  THE  EIGHTH  CENTURY. 

94.  Johannes  Damascenus  or  John  of  Damascus,  a  monk  in 

the  monastery  of  St.  Sabas,  wrote  numerous  treatises, 
chiefly  polemical.  His  principal  work  is  a  system  of 
theology  derived  from  the  fathers,  and  arranged  in  the 
manner  of  the  schoolmen.  His  writings  were  published 
by  Le  Quien  at  Paris  1712,  2  vols,  folio.  His  com- 
mentaries on  Paul's  epistles  are  chiefly  dependent 
on  Chrysostom ;  and  it  is  clear  that  he  quoted  care- 
lessly. 

95.  Elias  of  Crete  wrote  commentaries  on  the  orations  of 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  other  works.  They  have  been 
very  slightly  examined  for  purposes  of  criticism. 

96.  Georgius  Syncellus  wrote  a  Chronicon,  which  was  pub- 

lished by  Goar,  Paris,  1652  folio.  It  is  of  little  use  in 
criticism. 

97.  Tarasius  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  to  whom  the  former 

writer  was  synceUus,  wrote  several  letters  extant  in  the 
collections  of  councils  (Galland.  vol.  xiii.) 

98.  Theodore   Studites,    a  monk   of  Constantinople,   wrote 

catechetical  discourses  and  other  tracts,  edited  by  Siv- 
mond.     They  are  of  little  value  in  criticism. 
Of  most  importance  in  this  century  for  textual  criticism 
is  Johannes  Damascenus. 


QUOTATIONS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  351 

IN  THE  TENTH  CENTURY. 

99.  Arethas,  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  wrote  a  com- 
mentaiy  on  the  Apocalypse,  which  is  usually  printed 
with  the  works  of  (Ecumenius.  It  is  of  considerable 
value  in  the  criticism  of  the  text,  and  was  collated 
throughout  by  Tischendorf  for  his  second  critical  edition 
of  the  Greek  Testament. 

100.  Photius  patriarch  of  Constantinople  was  a  very  volu- 

minous writer.  Where  he  quotes  the  New  Testament 
he  does  it  carefully  and  literally.  His  works  were 
printed  by  Galland.  (Biblioth.  vol.  xiii.),  some  by 
Scotti,  others  by  Mai ;  and  many  are  yet  in  MS. 

IN  THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY. 

101.  CEcumenius  may  either  have  belonged  to  this  century  or 

to  the  preceding  one.  He  is  said  to  have  been  bishop 
of  Tricca  in  Thessaly.  The  commentaries  which  have 
been  published  in  his  name  are  upon  the  Acts,  the 
Pauline  and  Catholic  epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse. 
Tischendorf  who  examined  these  (except  the  Apoca- 
lypse) very  carefully  for  his  second  edition  says,  that 
the  text  is  not  well  edited.  They,  are  useful  in  textual 
criticism. 

102.  George  Cedrenus,  a  monk  of  Constantinople,  compiled  a 

chronicle  which  was  published  by  Fabrotus  and  Goar, 
Paris,  ]  647  folio.  It  is  of  little  consequence  for  critical 
purposes. 

103.  Michael    Psellus,   a    senator   at    Constantinople,   wrote 

several  commentaries  and  many  tracts  on  a  great 
variety  of  subjects.  But  they  are  rarely  quoted  for 
criticism. 

104.  Suidas    a   lexicographer  may  sometimes    be   consulted 


352  BIBLICAL   CRITICiSM. 

with  advantage,  more  however  for  interpretation  than 
criticism. 

105.  Theophylact  was  bishop  of  Bulgaria,  and  wrote,  or  rather 

compiled  from  Chrysostom,  commentaries  on  the  gospels. 
Acts,  and  all  the  epistles,  both  Pauline  and  Catholic. 
The  Venice  edition  of  his  works  by  de  Rubeis  and 
Finetti  1754-1763,  4  vols,  folio,  is  the  best.  Several 
portions  have  been  recently  discovered  and  made 
known  in  MSS.  belonging  to  the  Vatican  and  the 
Medicean  Library  at  Florence.  These  commentaries 
are  valuable  in  criticism,  and  have  been  very  diligently 
examined  again  by  Tischendorf, 
In  this  century  Q^cumenius  and  Theophylact  are  both 
valuable. 

IN  THE  TWELFTH  CENTURY. 

106.  Euthymius  Zygabenus  of  Constantinople  is  the  author 

of  commentaries  on  the  gospels  and  Psalms,  with 
many  other  works,  some  of  which  have  not  been 
printed.  He  did  not  write  commentaries  on  any  other 
part  of  the  New  Testament  except  the  gospels,  the 
best  edition  of  which  was  that  of  Matthaei  in  three 
volumes,  1792. 

107.  Glycas  a  Byzantine  historian  is  chiefly  known  by  his 

Annals,  divided  into  four  parts.  His  letters,  some  of 
which  were  published  by  Lami,  relate  to  theological 
subjects.  According  to  Scliolz,  who  collated  them,  he 
quotes  from  memory  where  he  departs  from  the  received 
text. 

108.  Theophanes  a  Sicilian  bishop,  is  the  author  of  homilies, 

some  of  which  were  published  at  Paris,   1644  folio. 
He  agrees  with  the  received  text. 
100.  Zonaras  of  Constantinople   wrote,   among  other  works, 


QUOTATIONS   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  353 

commentaries  on  the  apostolic  canons,  on  some  canoni- 
cal epistles  of  the  Greek  fathers,  and  on  the  canons  of 
the  councils.  But  his  quotations  of  Scripture  though 
numerous,  are  scarcely  ever  literal. 
Here  Euthjmius  Zygabenus  and  Zonaras,  are  the  best 
for  criticism. 

IN  THE  THIRTEENTH  OENTUEY. 

110.  Chrysocephalus,  who  is  placed  by  some  in  the  fourteenth 

century,  wrote  catenae  and  homilies.  But  his  com- 
mentary on  Matthew  is  his  most  important  work.  It 
is  still  in  MS.,  part  of  it  in  the  Bodleian. 

IN  THE  FOURTEENTH  CENTURY. 

111.  Gregorius  Palamas,  monk  in  one  of  the  monasteries  of 

Mount  Athos,  was  a  copious  writer,  but  his  published 
works  have  as  yet  been  very  little  applied  to  criticism. 

112.  Theodulus  (Thomas  Magister)  is  too  late  to  be  of  use. 


VOL.  II.  2  A 


CHAPTER   XXV. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN 
LATIN  WRITERS. 

We  shall  arrange  the  Latin  fathers  alphabetically. 

1.  Agapetus,  a  deacon  in  Constantinople  in  the  sixth  cen- 

tury, wrote  Scheda  Regta,  instructions  addressed  to 
Justinian.  The  book  contains  few  quotations  from  the 
New  Testament. 

2.  Alcimus    or    Alcimus    Ecdicius    Avitus,   archbishop   of 

Vienna  in  the  fifth  century,  wrote  various  poems, 
epistles,  and  homilies,  many  of  which  have  perished. 
Fragments  only  remain.  His  works  were  printed  by 
Sirmond  at  Paris  1634,  8vo,  and  are  of  little  use  in 
criticism. 

3.  Ambrosius,  bishop  of  Milan  in  the  fourth  century,  wrote 

numerous  works  including  commentaries  on  Scripture, 
which  were  published  by  the  Benedictines  at  Paris 
1686,  1690,  in  two  vols,  folio.  He  has  many  quota- 
tions from  the  New  Testament,  but  very  few  which 
are  really  useful,  or  from  which  the  genuine  text  can 
be  ascertained.  Depending  very  much  on  the  Greek 
intei-preters,  he  must  be  classed  on  this  account  with 
those  writers  who  belong  to  the  Alexandrine  school. 

4.  Ambrosiaster  in  the  fourth  century,  is  a  name  given  to 

the  writer  of  commentaries  on  Paul's  epistles  (except 


QUOTATIONS   FROM   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  355 

that  to  the  Hebrews).  This  writer,  who  was  formerly 
thought  to  be  Ambrose,  is  commonly  supposed  now  to 
have  been  Hilary  the  deacon.  If  the  text  were  more 
correctly  edited,  this  work  would  be  more  serviceable 
in  criticism.  As  it  is,  the  Venice  and  Roman  editions 
frequently  differ ;  so  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  discover 
the  authentic  reading  of  the  author.  When  Scholz 
affirms  that  Hilary  uses  the  Greek  text  of  the  Alexan- 
drines and  old  Latin  versions,  he  conveys  a  very  erro- 
neous impression.  Passing  over  Ansbertus  in  the 
eighth  century,  and  Apringius  or  Aprigius  in  the 
sixth,  who  are  of  no  consequence,  we  come  to 

5.  Arnobius,  an  African  author,  who  wrote  a  treatise  against 

tlie  Gentiles  in  seven  books,  published  by  Orelli  at 
Leipzig,  1816,  two  vols.  8vo.  There  are  few  scriptural 
quotations  in  it. 

6.  Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  in  the  fourth  century,  quotes 

very  many  passages  from  the  New  Testament,  but 
from  the  old  Latin  version,  chiefly  the  Itala  revision  of 
it.  The  best  edition  of  his  works  is  the  Benedictine, 
in  eleven  volumes  folio,  Paris  1679-1700. 

7.  Bede  in  the  eightli  century  must  have  had  the  Greek 

text  before  him,  for  he  gives  the  readings  of  Greek 
MSS.  in  many  places,  particularly  in  the  Acts  of  the 
apostles,  where  he  often  agrees  with  E.  (Cod.  Laudi- 
anus  in  the  Acts).  His  works  were  published  at  Cologne 
in  eight  volumes  folio,  1688, 

8.  Caesarius  of  Aries,  in  the  sixth  century,  wrote  on  moral 

subjects,  and  therefore  his  works  are  of  little  or  no  use 
in  criticism.  They  are  in  Galliind's  Bibliotheca,  vol. 
xi. 

9.  Cassian,  belonging  to  the  fifth  century,  did  not  write 

much  that  can  be  applied  in  criticism,  though  his  works 


356  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

are  numerous,  occupying  a  folio  volume  published  at 
Frankfort  in  1722. 

10.  Cassiodorus,  in  the  sixth   century,  was    a  voluminous 

writer,  and  some  of  his  works  may  be  advantageously 
consulted  by  the  critic,  especially  his  short  comments 
on  the  Acts,  the  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse. 

11.  Claudius,  bishop  of  Turin  in  the  ninth  century,  wrote 

commentaries  on  the  greater  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  but  none  have  been  published  except  that  on 
the  Galatian  epistle. 

12.  Chromatins,  bishop  of  Aquileia  in  the  fifth  century,  wrote 

several  homilies  on  the  New  Testament,  printed  in 
Galland's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  viii.  but  unimportant  in  a 
critical  view,  as  he  used  the  Latin  version. 

13.  Columbanus,  a  monk  in  the  sixth  century,  wrote  various 

treatises,  &c.  relating  to  monachism,  of  no  consequence 
to  critics. 

15.  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage  in  the  third  century,  is  too 

well  known  as  an  author  to  require  any  particular  de- 
scription in  this  place.  In  his  works,  which  were  best 
edited  by  Baluze  and  Prud.  Maranus,  Paris,  1726  folio, 
are  found  very  many  quotations  from  and  allusions  to  the 
Scriptures.  It  would  appear  however  that  he  usually 
cited  from  memory,  or  from  the  old  Latin  version  cur- 
rent in  Africa. 

16.  Epiphanius  called  Scholasticus,  at  the  beginning  of  the 

sixth  century,  translated  into  Latin  various  Greek 
works. 

17.  Eucherius,  bishop  of  Lyons  in  the  fifth  century,  wrote 

several  works,  including  homilies. 

18.  Fastidius,  a  British  bishop  in  the  fifth  century,  wrote  a 

tract  which  was  printed  in  the  Bibliotheca  of  Galland. 
vol.  ix. 


QUOTATIONS   FROM   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  357 

19.  Faustus,  a  Manichaean  in  the  fourth  century,  wrote  a 

book  which  Augustine  quotes  and  refutes.  It  is  of 
little  or  no  use  in  criticism. 

20.  Faustinus,  a  presbyter  at  Eome  in  the  fourth  century, 

wrote  on  various  theological  subjects.  His  works  are 
in  Galland's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  vii. 

21.  Facundus,  an  African  bishop  in  the  sixth  century,  wrote 

various  treatises  contained  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca, 
vol.  xi. 

22.  Julius  Firmicus  Maternus,  in  the  fourth  century,  wrote  a 

book  on  the  falsehood  of  the  pagan  religions,  which  is 
included  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  v. 

23.  Fulgentius,  bishop  of  Ruspe,  in  Africa,  at  the  beginning 

of  the  sixth  century,  wrote  various  theological  works  of 
some  value,  which  are  inserted  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca, 
vol.  xi." 

24.  Gaudentius,    bishop  of  Brescia  in  the  fourth  century, 

wrote  various  discourses  and  tracts,  which  deserve  to 
be  collated.     He  quotes  the  old  Latin  version. 

25.  Nothing  more  than  extracts  remain  of  the  treatises  of 

Gildas  of  Britain  in  the  sixth  century  which  relate  to 
Scripture.  His  only  entire  work  now  existing  is  his- 
tmncal. 

26.  Gregory  the  First,  or  the  Great,  a  leading  writer  in  the 

sixth  century,  followed  the  old  Latin  version  without 
neglecting  Jerome's  revision  of  it.  His  numerous 
works,  occupying  four  folio  volumes,  Paris  1705,  con- 
tain many  quotations  from  Scripture. 

27.  Haymo,  bishop  of  Halberstadt  in  the  ninth  century,  is 

the  reputed  author  of  Commentaries  on  Paul's  Epistles 
and  the  Apocalypse,  besides  others  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. But  they  are  mere  compilations  from  earlier 
writers. 

28.  Hieronymus  or  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  is  well 


358  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

known  as  the  most  learned  of  tlie  fathers.  His  writ- 
ings are  of  more  importance  in  criticism  than  those  of 
all  tlie  other  Latin  fathers  together.  He  mostly  used 
the  Greek  text,  of  which  he  had  doubtless  various 
MSS. ;  sometimes  the  old  Latin  version  which  he  re- 
vised ;  and  his  own  translation.  The  best  edition  of 
his  works  is  that  of  Vallarsi  in  eleven  volumes  folio, 
Verona  1734-1742.  We  need  scarcely  say  that  they 
form  an  indispensable  part  of  the  apparatus  required 
by  a  critic. 

29.  Hilary,  bishop  of  Poitiers  in  the  fourth  century,  wrote  a 

number  of  theological  treatises,  in  which  are  frequent 
references  to  Scripture.  He  used  however  the  old 
Latin  version.  Scholz  says  that  he  had  Greek  MSS. 
before  him ;  but  as  he  was  but  imperfectly  acquainted 
with  Greek,  this  assertion  may  be  doubted.  His  works 
were  published  by  Scipio  Maffei  at  Verona,  in  two 
volumes  folio,  1730. 

30.  Hincmar,  archbishop  of  Rheims  in  the  ninth  century, 

was  a  celebrated  and  leading  writer  in  his  day.  In 
criticism  however,  his  works  are  of  little  use. 

31.  Jacobus  of  Nisibis  in  the  fourth  century  is  said  to  have 

written  the  discourses  and  synodical  letter  inserted  by 
Galland.  in  Armenian  and  Latin  in  his  Bibliotheca, 
vol.  V. 

32.  Juvencus  of  Spain,  in  the  fourth  century,  wrote  in  poetry 

four  books  of  evangelical  history,  inserted  in  Galland's 
Bibliotheca,  vol.  iv.     He  quotes  the  Latin  version. 

33.  Lactantius,  a  native  of  Italy,  who  flourished  in  the  fourth 

century,  and  an  elegant  Latin  writer,  composed  his 
Divine  Institutions  in  seven  books.  This  and  his  other 
writings  are  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  iv.  He 
used  the  old  Latin  version. 

34.  Leo,  the  first  or  great,  bishop  of  Rome  in  the  fifth  century. 


QUOTATIONS   FROM   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  359 

wrote  many  sermons  and  epistles,  which  have  been  best 
published  by  the  brothers  Ballerini  at  Verona,  in  three 
vols,  folio,  1755-1757.     He  used  the  old  Latin  version. 

35.  Liberatus,  archdeacon  at  Carthage  in  the  sixth  century, 

wrote  his  Breviarmm,  which  may  be  consulted  with 
advantage  by  the  critic. 

36.  Lucifer,  bishop  of  Cagliari  in  the  fourth  century,  was 

the  author  of  various  theological  treatises  and  epistles, 
which  were  published  in  the  best  form  by  the  brothers 
Coleti  in  a  folio  volume  at  Venice  1778.  The  scrip- 
tural quotations  in  them  are  numerous  and  valuable. 
Lardner  says  that  he  has  largely  quoted  the  Acts,  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  second  epistle  of  John,  and 
almost  the  whole  of  Jude's  epistle.  Unquestionably 
he  used  the  old  Latin  version.  Whether  he  employed 
the  Greek  also  is  doubtful.  The  Alexandrine  character 
of  many  of  his  readings  may  be  accounted  for  without 
supposing  him  to  have  consulted  the  original. 

37.  Marius  Mercator,  a  controversial  writer  of  the  fifth  cen- 

tury, who  opposed  the  Pelagian  and  Nestorian  doc- 
trines, has  many  scriptural  quotations,  but  it  seems 
that  he  used  the  Latin  version.  His  works  are  in  Gal- 
land's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  viii. 

38.  Martin  the  First,  bishop  of  Rome  in  the  seventh  cen- 

tury, wrote  various  epistles,  some  of  which  are  extant 
and  have  been  published,  but  they  are  of  little  use  in 
criticism. 

39.  The  works  of  Maximus  bishop  of  Turin  in  the  fifth  cen- 

tury consist  of  short  homilies,  and  are  included  in  Gal- 
land's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  ix.  It  is  evident  that  he  used 
the  old  Latin  version. 

40.  Novatian,  a  Roman  presbyter  in  the  third  century,  -wrote 

various  theological  treatises,  in  which  are  very  few 
quotations  from  the  New  Testament,  and  those  made 


360  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

from  memory.  His  works  are  contained  in  Galland's 
Bibliotheca,  vol.  iii. 

41.  Optatus,  bishop  of  Milevi  in  the  fourth  century,  wrote 

a  polemic  work  against  the  Donatists,  inserted  in 
Galland.  vol.  v.  He  seems  to  have  used  the  old  Latin 
version. 

42.  Orosius,  a  Spanish  presbyter  belonging  to  the  fifth  cen- 

tury, is  known  as  the  author  of  a  history  and  other 
works  in  Galland's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  ix.  He  used 
nothing  but  the  old  Latin  version. 

43.  Pacian,  bishop  of  Barcelona  in  Spain  in  the  fourth  cen- 

tury, wrote  various  tracts  and  treatises,  which  are  in- 
cluded in  Galland's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  vii. 

44.  Paulinus,  bishop  of  Aquileia  in  the  eighth  century,  was 

the  author  of  various  polemical  works,  which  may  be 
consulted  with  some  benefit  in  criticism. 

45.  Pelagius,  in  the  fourth  century,  wrote  commentaries  on 

the  Pauline  epistles  (except  that  to  the  Hebrews),  which 
are  found  in  a  very  mutilated  state  among  the  works  of 
Jerome.  Sabatier  refers  to  him  under  the  name  of  the 
Scholiast  of  Jerome. 

46.  Philastrius  was  bishop  of  Brescia  in  the  fourth  century, 

and  wrote  a  book  respecting  heresies  in  150  chapters, 
which  contains  various  quotations  from  the  Scriptures, 
but  in  the  old  Latin  version. 

47.  Phoebadius  of  Agen,  in  the  fourth  century,  in  his  work 

against  the  Arians  inserted  by  Galland.  in  the  Biblio- 
theca, vol.  v.,  quotes  the  old  Latin  version. 

48.  A  work  called  Praedestinatus  s.  Praedestinatorum  Hae- 

resis,  contains  various  unimportant  scriptural  quotations. 
It  was  once  improperly  ascribed  to  Vincentius  of  Lerins. 

49.  Primasius,  an  African  bishop  in  the  sixth  century,  wrote 

among  other  works  a  commentary  on  Paul's  epistles, 
and  an  exposition  of  the  Apocalypse. 


QUOTATIONS   FEOM   THE   NEW   TESTAJIENT.  361 

50.  Prosper  of  Aquitain,  in  the  fifth  century,  used  the  old 

Latin  version. 

51.  Prudentius  of  Spain,  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 

was  a  poetical  writer  on  religious  subjects,  of  small 
ability. 

52.  Rufinus  of  Aquileia,  belonging  to  the  fourth  and  fifth 

centuries,  wrote  some  histories,  various  commentaries 
and  treatises,  &c.,  which  are  not  of  much  utility.  He 
used  the  old  Latin  version. 

53.  Ruricius  bishop  of  Limoges,  belonging  to  the  fifth  century, 

wrote  several  epistles  contained  in  Galland's  Biblio- 
theca. 

54.  The  works  of  Salvian,  presbyter  at  Marseilles,  belong- 

ing to  the  fifth  century,  are  included  in  the  Biblio- 
theca  of  Galland.  vol.  x.  He  used  the  old  Latin 
version. 

55.  Sedulius,  a  writer  and  poet  in  the  fifth  century,  is  of  no 

consequence  in  criticism. 

56.  Siricius,  bishop  of  Rome  in  the  fourth  centmy,  wrote 

various  epistles  which  are  contained  in  the  Bibliotheca 
of  Galland.  vol.  vii. 

57.  Tertullian  of  Carthage,  in  the  third  centmy,  is  too  con- 

spicuous a  writer  to  require  any  lengthened  notice  here. 
In  his  various  writings  we  see  the  form  of  the  old 
Latin  version  as  it  was  then  circulated  about  Carthage  ; 
but  his  citations  are  made  negligently,  and  not  without 
alteration.  His  work  against  Marcion  is  useful  in 
regard  to  the  text  of  Luke's  gospel ;  but  it  should  be 
employed  with  great  discrimination.  The  best  edition 
is  that  of  Semler  published  at  Halle  1769-1773,  1776, 
completed  in  six  volumes  8vo. 

58.  Tichonius,  an  African  belonging  to  the  fourth  century, 

wrote  rules  for  explaining  Scripture,  which  are  contained 
in  Galland's  Bibliotheca,  vol.  viii.     A  commentary  on 


362  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

the  Apocalypse,  quoted  under  his  name,  does  not  be- 
long to  him. 

59.  Valerian,  a  bishop  in  the  maritime  Alps,  belonging  to  the 

fifth  century,  wrote  homilies  and  an  epistle  inserted  by 
Galland.  in  his  Bibliotheca,  vol.  x. 

60.  Victor  Vitensis,  an  African  bishop  of  the  fifth  century, 

wrote  a  history  of  the  persecutions  in  Africa  under  the 
Vandals ;  of  little  or  no  use  in  criticism. 

61.  Victor  of  Tunis,  in  the  sixth  century,  wrote  a  Ghronicon^ 

part  of  which  remains,  and  is  inserted  in  Galland' s 
Bibliotheca,  vol.  xii. 

62.  Victorinus  Philosophus  or  the  philosopher,  an  African  by 

birth,  belonging  to  the  fourth  century,  wrote  among 
other  works,  commentaries  on  the  epistles  of  Paul  and 
the  Apocalypse.  Those  on  the  Galatians,  Philippians, 
and  Ephesians  were  first  published  by  Mai,  in  the 
third  volume  of  his  Scriptorum  Veterum  nova  collection 
p.  265,  et  seq. ;  and  that  on  the  latter  is  in  Galland's 
Bibliotheca,  vol.  viii.  As  this  writer  used  the  old 
antehieronymian  version,  his  commentaries  which 
quote  it  are  valuable  in  shewing  the  old  Latin  text  of 
his  day. 

63.  Vigilius  of  Tapsus  in  Africa,  in  the  fifth  century,  is  the 

author  of  numerous  theological  treatises.  He  used  the 
old  Latin  version. 

64.  Zeno  bishop  of  Verona,  in  the  fourth  century,  also  used 

the  old  Latin  version  in  the  sermons  he  wrote,  which 
are  found  in  Galland.  vol.  v. 

65.  Zosimus,  bishop  of  Rome,  who  flourished  in  the  fifth 

century,  wrote  epistles  which  are  inserted  by  Galland. 
in  his  Bibliotheca,  vol.  ix. 

GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THIS  SOURCE. 
This  source  of  evidence  has  been  decried  by  critics  like 


QUOTATIONS   FROM   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  363 

Matthaei,  as  if  nothing  certain  or  useful  could  be  deduced 
from  it.  We  do  not  share  in  this  extreme  opinion.  Mill  was 
right  in  using  it  even  in  opposition  to  the  sentiments  of  his 
patron ;  and  subsequent  editors,  not  excepting  Lachmann,  have 
retained  it  as  legitimate.  The  extent  to  which  it  should  be 
employed,  as  well  as  the  mode  of  its  application,  and  the 
weight  allowed  to  it,  may  le  differently  judged  of,  and  have 
been  variously  determined ;  but  the  source  itself  has  not  been 
discarded  or  neglected.  Taking  it  as  a  whole,  it  is  not  of  so 
much  weight  or  utility  in  criticism  as  MSS.  Its  authority  is 
inferior  to  them.  Codices  occupy  the  first  rank.  Neither  is 
it  of  the  same  consequence  as  the  most  ancient  versions.  We 
should  not  place  it  on  an  equality  with  them,  for  they  occupy 
the  next  position  to  MSS.  But  quotations  from  the  works  of 
ecclesiastical  and  ancient  writers  constitute  an  evidence  of 
themselves  which  has  its  determining  value. 

Yet  comparatively  little  profit  has  hitherto  accrued  from 
this  som-ce  of  criticism.  It  has  been  unduly  extended.  Too 
many  writers  have  been  comprehended  under  it.  It  has  been 
followed  down  to  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries.  And 
besides,  a  multitudinous  class  of  men  have  been  collected  and 
their  works  examined  for  the  purpose.  The  consequence  has 
been,  that  amid  the  vastness  of  the  field  little  real  culture  of 
any  one  portion  of  it  has  taken  place.  All  the  writers  have 
been  very  cursorily  inspected.  How  indeed  could  it  be  other- 
wise ?  What  critic  can  be  supposed  to  have  looked  into  the 
voluminous  works  of  sixty  or  seventy  authors?  Can  he  be 
said  to  have  coVxited  them  for  readings  ?  The  thing  is  impos- 
sible. So  far  from  this,  hardly  a  single  ancient  writer  has 
been  yet  examined  as  he  ought  to  be,  by  a  single  scholar. 
We  believe  that  too  large  a  field  was  taken  even  by  Mill  and 
Wetstein.  Griesbach's  is  also  too  great.  In  the  hands  of 
Scholz  it  swelled  out  to  a  greater  extent — with  what  advantage 
to  his  text — let  the  text  itself  declare.     And  in  Tischendoif 's 


364  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

edition,  what  a  host  of  authors,  Greek  and  Latin,  is  enumerated ; 
few  of  whom  he  has  ever  looked  at.  It  is  therefore  in  com- 
pliance with  the  example  of  Grieshach,  Scholz,  and  Tischen- 
dorf,  rather  than  in  consequence  of  our  own  conviction,  that 
we  have  given  the  preceding  list  of  writers.  We  believe  that 
it  should  be  very  materially  abridged  in  two  respects.  It 
should  be  curtailed  in  the  centuries  it  embraces,  as  well  as  the 
number  of  writers  contained  in  it.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the 
first  five  centuries  are  sufficient.  The  writers  who  belonged  to 
them  are  by  far  the  most  important.  All  later  ones  might  be 
dispensed  with,  except  as  several  of  them  are  necessary  (ex.  gr. 
Theophylact)  to  give  us  extracts  from  the  leading  fathers  of 
more  ancient  times.  And  in  the  second  place,  a  selection  of 
the  most  important  ecclesiastical  authors  in  each  century  should 
be  made.  At  present,  obscure  and  unimportant  ones  are  in- 
cluded, whose  works  are  not  worth  the  labour  of  a  thorough 
examination.  Having  effected  this  necessary  curtailment  and 
so  reduced  the  multitude  to  the  leading  writers  of  the  first  five 
centuries,  the  next  thing  requisite  is  to  have  each  one  carefully 
examined  by  one  person.  Let  some  one  scholar  undertake  to 
collate  one  writer,  in  such  a  manner  as  that  the  writer  shall 
not  require  a  recollation,  either  for  the  purpose  of  extending  tlie 
number  of  quotations  discoverable  in  his  works,  or  of  correcting 
mistakes  made  with  respect  to  those  already  procured.  We 
want  a  thorough  collation  of  each  writer's  works.  To  ensure 
greater  accuracy,  it  is  desirable  that  one  person  should  con- 
fine himself  to  one  author ;  but  if  he  be  competent  and  dis- 
posed to  collate  more,  let  him  by  all  means  do  so.  The 
sooner  such  satisfactory  collations  of  all  the  chief  writers  are 
made,  the  better  for  criticism.  Till  now,  New  Testament 
criticism  has  been  very  deficient  here.  It  has  fared  badly  in 
this  respect.  The  only  approach  to  the  thing  recommended 
has  been  made  by  Griesbach,  with  regard  to  Origen.  The 
labour  which  that  immortal  critic  spent  upon  the  works  of  the 


QUOTATIONS    PROM    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  365 

Alexandrine  father  was  immense.  Had  others  done  as  much 
for  other  ancient  writers,  liow  diiferent  would  have  been  the 
aspect  of  criticism  in  this  department.  But  the  example  of 
Griesbach  is  a  solitary  one. 

We  trust  that  the  influence  of  Lachmann's  edition  will 
lead  to  the  abridgment  we  have  recommended.  There  is  no 
need  to  imitate  the  restriction  of  the  Berlin  philologian ;  nor 
would  it  be  wise  to  do  so.  His  range  of  authorities  should  be 
extended.  But  we  are  persuaded  that  he  did  right  in  break- 
ing away  from  the  current  practice  here,  as  he  did  in  attempt- 
ing to  form  a  text  irrespectively  of  the  textus  receptus.  And 
we  are  much  mistaken  if  the  path  he  so  boldly  entered  be  not 
hereafter  followed. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  the  number  of  various  readings 
derived  from  this  source  has  been  greatly  multiplied  from  want 
of  attention  to  the  needful  cautions  and  limitations.  The  list 
has  been  much  augmented,  owing  to  a  variety  of  causes. 
Could  we  ascertain  with  certainty  the  reading  which  each 
ecclesiastical  writer  had  in  his  copy  at  a  particular  place,  the 
present  heap  would  be  diminished.  It  needs  sifting  ;  for  it  is 
doubtless  replete  with  inaccuracies.  Another  plan  must  be 
adopted  before  it  be  in  a  right  state. 

In  collecting  readings  from  the  works  of  the  fathers,  they 
must  be  distinguished  into  Greek  and  Latin,  according  to  the 
languages  they  wrote  in.  Greater  weight  should  be  given  to 
the  former  than  to  the  latter,  because  they  quoted  from  the 
Greek  text  itself,  whereas,  with  some  exceptions,  the  Latin 
writers  quoted  Scripture  according  to  their  established  version, 
«.  e.  the  Latin.  The  most  ancient  Latin  fathers  quoted  the 
v&rsio  vetus  in  the  particular  recension  of  it  which  circulated  in 
their  district  or  which  they  preferred ;  the  later  ones  were  in 
the  habit  of  quoting  Jerome's  revision  of  the  old  Latin,  com- 
monly called  the  Vulgate.  Hence  their  citations  are  primarily 
and  properly  witnesses  for  the  readings  of  the  Latin  version. 


366  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

They  bear  on  the  original  Greek  text  indirectly  ;  not  primarily 
and  directly  as  the  citations  of  Greek  fathers  who  employed 
the  original  itself.  Thus  it  is  easy  to  perceive,  that  less  value 
belongs  to  the  citations  of  the  Latin  fathers,  because  the  latter 
were  generally  unacquainted  with  the  Greek  text  itself  and 
used  a  Latin  version.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  Syrian 
fathers.  Ephrem  employed  a  Syrian  version.  Perhaps  he  did 
not  know  Greek. 

Among  the  Latin  fathers,  those  deserve  most  attention  who 
appear  to  have  understood  Greek,  and  to  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  consulting  Greek  copies.  Here  Jerome  is  a  prominent 
example.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  may  also  be  mentioned.  Augus- 
tine had  some  knowledge  of  Greek  ;  but  he  does  not  appear  to 
have  used  Greek  copies. 

Rules  have  been  given  for  making  extracts  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  fathers.  But  they  are  of  little  moment.  Indeed 
they  hardly  deserve  the  name  ;  for  they  are  rather  cautions  to 
be  observed  by  critics  lest  they  go  wrong.  They  are  more  of 
a  negative  than  positive  kind.  We  shall  sum  up  in  the  follow- 
ing observations  all  that  we  believe  to  be  useful  on  this  topic. 
They  are  the  best  hints  and  suggestions  which  we  have  been 
able  to  put  together  as  the  result  of  reading  and  reflection. 
Though  they  may  appear  common-place,  they  are  not  to  be 
despised.  Plain  as  they  are,  they  will  approve  themselves  as 
pertinent : — 

1 .  The  best  edition  of  each  ecclesiastical  writer  should  be 
used.  This  is  of  primary  importance.  There  are  correct  edi- 
tions ;  and  there  are  corrupted  ones.  What  is  in  all  cases 
wanted  is  one  critically  and  correctly  edited  from  the  best 
available  MSS.  Many  have  not  been  edited  as  they  should. 
But  the  best  existing  one  should  be  procured.  There  is  little 
doubt  that  these  writings  have  been  altered  in  many  cases, 
either  by  editors  or  copyists.  They  were  made  to  agree  with 
the  text  before  the  editors  or  copyists  themselves,  or  with  that 


QUOTATIONS   FROM    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  367 

which  tliey  preferred.     No  works  have  suffered  so  much  as 
those  of  Chrysostom, 

2.  The  readings  found  in  the  most  ancient  fathers  should 
be  preferred.  But  though  antiquity  has  proportionately 
gi'eater  authority,  there  are  limitations  to  it,  especially  in  this 
instance,  that  ought  not  to  be  overlooked.  There  are  circum- 
stances which  neutralise  its  value.  The  remaining  monu- 
ments of  the  first  two  centuries  are  few.  They  also  contain 
little  that  can  be  applied  to  critical  purposes.  And  the  writers 
of  these  centuries  had  little  idea  of  a  correct  text,  or  the  desir- 
ableness of  revising  it.  They  were  very  uncritical,  allowing 
all  kinds  of  glosses  and  changes  to  remain  in  the  text,  without 
solicitude. 

3.  The  authors  should  be  diligently  considered  as  to  their 
learning  or  erudition.  The  well-instructed  fathers  deserve 
more  attention  than  the  ignorant.  Those  whose  attainments 
were  respectable,  whose  habits  were  accurate,  whose  judgment 
was  good,  should  be  preferred.  Nor  should  the  creed  of  the 
church  to  which  they  belonged  and  the  nature  of  the  copies  that 
prevailed  in  the  region  they  inhabited  be  neglected.  The 
natural  abilities,  acquired  attainments,  and  theological  atmos- 
phere of  the  fathers  must  not  be  overlooked. 

4.  The  great  object  is,  to  ascertain  the  reading  which  they 
actually  found  in  the  MSS.  they  used.  The  copies  they  pos- 
sessed were  more  ancient  than  any  now  extant.  Hence  by 
means  of  their  citations  we  may  see  older  readings  than  we 
can  obtain  from  any  other  source.  But  it  is  not  easy  in  many 
instances  to  tell  the  particular  reading  contained  in  their  copies. 
They  often  trusted  to  their  memory  in  citation.  By  this  means 
they  committed  mistakes  in  giving  the  words  of  Scripture. 
They  also  quoted  paraphrasticallyj  exhibiting  the  general  sense 
of  a  passage  rather  than  the  precise  words.  Sometimes  they 
have  a  mere  allusion  to  a  passage,  a  general  reference,  rather 
than  a  citation.     They  also  accommodated  passages  to  the  pur- 


368  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

port  or  thread  of  their  discourse  by  changing  them.  Some 
they  condensed ;  others  they  expanded.  They  quoted,  too, 
part  of  a  passage — such  words  only  as  related  to  the  subject 
in  question — which  they  incorporated  with  their  own  language. 
It  is  certain  that  they  both  added  and  subtracted.  In  some 
cases,  critical  conjecture  was  resorted  to.  Their  own  opinions 
were  proposed. 

These  considerations  will  shew  the  difficulty  of  finding  the 
real,  direct  testimony  of  the  fathers  with  relation  to  varieties  of 
reading.  Allowance  must  be  made  for  them  by  the  critic. 
Lapses  of  memory,  loose  paraphrases  or  allusions  rather  than 
citations  properly  so  called^  the  substitution  of  synonymous 
phrases  for  those  employed  by  the  sacred  writers,  additions, 
omissions,  change  of  the  order  and  construction  observed  in 
the  original,  all  kinds  of  accommodation,  as  also  emendations 
or  conjectures,  must  be  carefully  attended  to. 

5.  The  different  classes  of  writings  should  be  attended  to. 
There  are  commentaries  or  expositions  of  Scripture.  There  are 
also  jjolemical  treatises.  There  are  likewise  practical  works 
intended  for  edification. 

In  regard  to  commentaries,  it  is  indubitable  that  the  author 
had  a  copy  or  copies  of  the  New  Testament  before  him  from 
which  he  quoted  accurately.  This  is  specially  the  case  when 
the  words  of  Scripture  are  repeated  and  explained.*  The 
same  observation  applies  to  all  the  sections  of  considerable 
length  which  we  find  among  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  not 
only  their  exegetical,  but  also  their  doctrinal  and  polemical 
ones.  When  the  fathers  wrote  down  these  long  lessons  or 
Scripture  paragraphs,  they  must  have  transcribed  them  from  a 
copy  they  had  before  their  eyes.f 

Again,  those  quotations  must  be  considered  accurate  which 
expressly  appeal  to  MSS.,  or  have   a  declaration  associated 

*  See  Griesbach's  Dissertatio  critica  de  codic.  quat.  evang.  Orig.  in  his 
Ojntscula  by  Gabler,  vol.  i.  p.  278,  et  seq.  f  Ibid,  p.  281,  et  seq. 


QUOTATIONS    FROM   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  369 

with  them  to  the  effect  of  such  a  reading  and  none  other  being 
right.* 

Still  farther,  quotations  in  which  parallel  passages  are 
given  and  compared  together,  must  be  deemed  accurate.f 

If  a  passage  be  quoted  oftener  than  once  in  the  very  same 
manner,  we  can  hardly  doubt  of  its  being  accurately  cited. 
But  if  it  be  quoted  differently  in  different  places,  that  reading 
must  be  generally  preferred  which  is  found  in  the  greater 
number  of  the  citations.  \ 

If  citations  agree  with  ancient  Greek  MSS.  still  extant, 
it  is  clear  that  they  were  accurately  extracted  from  copies 
accessible  to  the  writer.  The  same  holds  good  when  they 
agree  with  ancient  versions,  or  the  citations  of  other  ecclesias- 
tical authors.§ 

Doctrinal  and  controversial  works  containing  citations  from 
Scripture  do  not  generally  furnish  so  much  aid  as  exegetical 
ones.  In  polemical  works  especially,  the  fathers  were  not 
scrupulous  or  accurate  in  their  use  of  Scripture.  Not  that  this 
is  always  the  case ;  for  there  are  some  who  in  handling  con- 
troversial topics,  or  refuting  erroneous  tenets,  shew  very  clearly 
what  readings  they  found  in  their  MSS. 

Homilies  and  hortatory  writings  are  of  least  use ;  for  in  them 
citations  are  usually  loose  and  inaccurate.  But  some  of  the 
fathers,  as  Origen,  were  alike  accurate  in  all  their  works, 
expository,  controversial,  or  hortatory. 

6.  The  omission  of  a  passage  in  the  works  of  the  fathers 
does  not  always  shew  that  it  was  wanting  in  the  copies  used. 
We  must  not  rashly  conclude  from  their  silence  that  these 
authors  were  ignorant  of  any  particular  reading,  or  that  they 
judged  it  spurious.  Yet  the  silence  of  the  fathers  generally 
respecting  an  important  passage  renders  it  suspicious,  as  in  the 
case  of  1  John  v.  7. 

*  See  Gricsbach's  Dissertatio  critica  de  codic.  quat.  evang.  Orig.  in  his 
Opuscula  by  Gabler,  vol.  i.  p.  285,  et  seq.  t  Ibid,  p.  286,  ct  seq. 

X  Ibid,  p.  292,  et  seq.  §  Ibid,  p.  294,  et  seq. 

VOL.  H.  2  B 


370  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

7.  When  the  same  passage  is  quoted  in  the  same  manner 
by  marty  fathers,  the  evidence  is  strong  that  the  passage  is 
genuine,  as  they  exhibit  it.  The  evidence  becomes  stronger 
in  proportion  to  the  number  and  character  of  the  writers,  as 
well  as  the  number  and  character  of  consenting  MSS.  and 
versions. 

8.  It  is  hazardous  to  admit  a  reading  as  authentic  which 
is  destitute  of  any  other  authority  than  that  of  ecclesiastical 
writers. 

It  is  usual  to  class  the  writings  of  the  heretics  and  enemies 
of  Christianity  along  with  those  of  the  fathers.  And  they  are 
rightly  so  placed.  With  due  restrictions  and  caution,  the 
same  rules  are  applicable  to  them.  This  is  true  of  the  Acts  of 
councils^  which  have  also  been  applied  to  criticism.  Perhaps 
however  the  last  mentioned  writings  have  been  oftenest  tam- 
pered with  by  transcribers  and  editors. 

We  had  thought  of  appending  examples  to  the  preceding- 
remarks,  but  want  of  space  compels  us  to  forbear.  In  the 
meantime  Griesbach's  essays  may  be  referred  to  for  illus- 
trations.* None  has  investigated  the  writings  of  Origen 
with  equal  care.  We  may  also  send  the  reader  to  Wetstein's 
treatise  Lihelli  ad  crisin  atque  interpretationem  Novi  Testamenti, 
edited  by  Semler,  along  with  the  latter's  review  of  Bengel's 
Introductio  ad  Crisin.^  In  regard  to  Irenaeus,  Michaelis's 
Tractatio  critica  de  variis  lectionibus  Novi  Testament^  &c.  is 
valuable.}  But  the  study  of  Griesbach's  Symholae  criticae 
with  his  Commentarius  criticus^  is  the  best  preparation  for  him 
who  desires  intelligently  to  apply  this  source  of  criticism  to 
the  emendation  of  the  text.  None  had  more  sagacity  than 
Griesbach  in  this  department ;  and  we  need  not  say  that 
sagacity  and  judgment  are  important  qualifications  in  a  critic. 

*  Dissertatio  Critica  de  codicibus  quatuor  evangeliorum  Origenianis, 
in  Griesbach's  Opuscula  by  Gabler,  vol.  i.  p.  226,  et  seq. 

•]■  Published  along  with  Ridley's  Dissertation  on  Syriac  versions,  in 
1766,  at  Halle.  J  See  pp.  21-26. 


CHAPTER    XXVI. 


CRITICAL   CONJECTURE. 

Another  source  of  correction  is  said  to  be  critical  con- 
jecture. 

In  the  New  Testament,  critical  conjecture  has  been  very 
little  exercised.  This  is  as  it  should  be.  There  is  no  need  for 
it  there.  We  have  many  distinct  MSS. ;  and  wherever  one 
is  defective,  the  parts  wanting  may  be  supplied  from  another. 
Ancient  versions  also,  belonging  to  different  countries  and 
ages  are  at  our  disposal,  from  which  we  may  gather  the  ori- 
ginal text.  Quotations  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  are 
within  reach.  Thus  the  materials  for  procuring  a  correct, 
unadulterated  text  are  abundant.  With  these  immense  re- 
sources now  readily  accessible,  it  would  be  unwise  to  give 
scope  to  ingenuity,  or  to  set  bare  presumptions  above  the 
•legitimate  sources  of  emendation.  Critical  conjecture  is  ren- 
dered wholly  superfluous  by  the  very  copious  array  of  proper 
resources — so  copious,  that  it  will  never  desert  the  critic,  or 
leave  him  at  a  loss  in  determining  the  reading  of  a  particular 
passage.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  true  reading  has  been 
lost  from  all  existing  documents,  in  any  one  instance.  The 
thing  Is  at  least  very  improbable. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  none  of  the  critical  editors 
sanction  the  adoption  of  conjectural  emendations  into  the  text. 
Even  Bentley  proposed  to  exclude  them,  for  he  says, — "  The 


372  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

author  is  very  sensible,  that  in  the  Sacred  Writings  there's  no 
place  for  conjectures  or  emendations.  Diligence  and  fidelity, 
with  some  judgment  and  experience,  are  the  characters  here 
requisite.  He  declares  therefore  that  he  does  not  alter  one 
letter  in  the  text  without  the  authorities  subjoin'd  in  the 
notes."  Griesbach  in  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  was 
equally  scrupulous  in  refraining  from  hazarding  any  conjec- 
tures in  regard  to  the  text ;  and  later  editors  have  followed 
his  example. 

But  although  it  is  unnecessary,  and  therefore  improper,  to 
change  the  Greek  words  without  authority,  we  may  freely  put 
forth  our  judgment  in  regard  to  accents,  marks  of  aspiration, 
and  punctuation,  since  these  formed  no  part  of  the  primitive 
text.  Here  editors  have  followed  their  own  views.  Chap- 
ters, paragraphs,  verses,  clauses,  may  be  very  different  in  dif- 
ferent editions,  for  they  are  simply  matters  of  opinion  on 
the  part  of  an  editor. 

If  the  reader  wishes  to  see  the  principal  conjectures  that 
have  been  put  forth  in  regard  to  the  New  Testament  text, 
he  must  consult  the  second  volume  of  Bowyer's  Greek  Tes- 
tament, printed  in  1763,  which  has  at  the  end  178  pages 
containing  "  Conjectural  emendations  on  the  New  Testament, 
collected  from  various  authors."  Along  with  this  work  he 
may  also  take  Knapp's  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which 
has  at  the  end  a  sylloge  or  collection  of  the  more  remarkable 
and  celebrated  conjectures,  and  Michaelis's  section,  in  which 
he  proposes  several  critical  conjectures.*  We  venture  to  affirm, 
that  a  perusal  of  these  works  will  do  much  to  shew  the  use- 
lessness  and  absurdity  of  speculating  on  the  subject.  The 
nature  of  the  conjectures  there  given  proceeding  from  good 
scholars,  as  they  do  for  the  most  part,  will  teach  the  ridicul- 
ousness of  forsaking  documents  for  such  improbabilities.  Diffi- 
culty in   interpretation  has  usually  led  to  them.     But  it  is 

*  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.  translated  by  Marsh,  vol.  ii.  p.  402. 


CRITICAL   CONJECTURE.  373 

better  to  interpret  a  passage  as  well  as  we  can,  or  to  confess 
our  inability  to  explain  it,  than  have  recourse  to  the  expedient 
in  question. 

The  following  may  be  taken  as  examples  of  conjecture  : — 

In  Acts  XV.  20, 29  occurs  the  puzzling  word  mgvilagj  forni- 
cation— puzzling  we  mean  in  relation  to  its  connection  with 
the  other  particulars  specified.  Hence  some  have  thought 
that  the  original  may  have  been  rro^xuag^  sioine's  flesh.  This 
requires  the  alteration  of  no  more  than  a  single  letter,  and  is 
more  plausible  than  ^oi^slag,  which  has  the  same  meaning.  If 
we  were  ever  inclined  to  look  with  favour  on  a  conjectural 
emendation  in  the  Greek  Testament,  it  was  on  the  former  of 
these  two.  But  no  document  has  it,  and  it  must  therefore  be 
discarded. 

More  mischievous,  because  proceeding  apparently  from  a 
theological  bias,  is  the  conjecture  of  Schlichting,  approved 
by  Crell  and  Taylor,  of  Siv  6  I'ji  instead  of  6  wv  s'tti  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans  ix.  5.  Harwood,  in  the  note  to  his 
Greek  Testament,  calls  this  "  an  ingenious  conjecture  which 
makes  a  grand  and  magnificent  climax,"  but  as  he  candidly 
allows,  it  is  wholly  unsupported. 

Of  the  same  kind  as  the  last  is  Crell's  ko\J  instead  of 
6ihg  in  John  i.  1,  prompted  by  theological  prejudice. 

'Ep^wi/  for  'E/Mfj^oo  is  the  conjecture  of  Grotius  in  Acts  vii.  16. 

In  1  Corinth,  xv.  29,  the  difficult  phrase  iSa-rn^o/Msvoi  vts^  rSJv 
viKPuv  is  sought  to  be  evaded  by  the  conjecture  of  Valckenaer, 
^a-TTTi^ofiivoi  OCT  s^yuv  vsK^Siv.  This  is  approved  by  Venema  and 
others. 

In  the  "  Remarks  upon  a  late  Discourse  of  free-thinking" 
by  Bentley,  we  find  him  throwing  out  the  conjecture  of  T^off=;/£/, 
'TT^oGs^irai,  or  'TPoslff^Brai  for  rT^osi^yjrai  in  1  Timothy  vi.  3.  In 
the  same  place  he  also  speaks  of  aei'Kyum  instead  of  dasjSsiojv, 
Jude  18.* 

*  See  pages  72,  73,  sixth  edition. 


CHAPTEK  XXVII. 


CRITICAL    RULES. 

In  addition  to  external  evidence,  internal  must  not  be  over- 
looked. Without  this  it  is  impossible  to  prevent  the  existence 
of  a  merely  diplomatic  or  historical  criticism  which  confines 
itself  to  a  limited  range  of  evidence.  Readings  must  be  judged 
on  internal  grounds.  One  can  hardly  avoid  doing  so.  It  is 
natural  and  almost  unavoidable.  It  must  be  admitted  indeed 
that  the  choice  of  readings  on  internal  evidence  is  liable  to 
abuse.  Arbitrary  caprice  may  characterise  it.  It  may  degene- 
rate into  simple  subjectivity.  But  though  the  temptation  to 
misapply  it  be  great,  it  must  not  be  laid  aside.  Intuitive 
sagacity  and  tact  have  their  value,  when  kept  in  due  restraint 
and  subordinated  to  other  considerations  of  a  more  definite 
kind.  While  allowing  superior  weight  to  the  external  sources 
of  evidence,  we  feel  the  pressing  necessity  of  the  subjective. 
Here,  as  in  other  instances,  the  objective  and  subjective  should 
accompany  and  modify  one  another.  They  cannot  be  rightly 
separated. 

The  internal  grounds  by  which  the  originality  of  readings 

is  perceived  have  been  divided  into  various  kinds.     Thus  De 

Wette  speaks  of  Exegetico-critical^  Mstorico-criticaJ ,  and  such  as 

arise  out   of  a  toriter^s  characteristic  peculiarities*     But  it  is 

*  Einleitung,  p.  80,  ct  seq. 


CRITICAL   RULES.  375 

simpler  to  speak  of  all  under  one  head,  without  minute  dis- 
tinction. We  shall  therefore  describe  them  all  as  internal 
grounds  by  which  the  genuine  reading  of  a  passage  may  be 
determined. 

1.  Those  readings  should  be  rejected  which  yield  no 
meaning,  or  an  improper  one.  The  connexion  is  regarded  as 
the  criterion  in  judging  of  what  has  no  sense  or  an  unsuitable 
one.  But  here  great  caution  is  needed,  lest  a  reading  be 
thought  to  give  no  meaning,  or  an  improper  one,  when  that  is 
only  its  apparent  character.  Thus  De  Wette  pronounces 
Lachmann's  form  of  the  text  in  Matt.  xxi.  28-31  senseless, 
when  it  is  really  not  so.*  On  the  contrary,  it  appears  to  be 
the  original  reading.  A  true  example  is  furnished  by  the  re- 
ceived reading  in  Romans  vii.  6,  viz.  ccjro&avovrog  in  the  geni- 
tive, instead  of  a'jrodavCvng.  Our  English  translators  have 
in  vain  endeavoured  to  make  sense  of  the  genitive.  Another 
is  found  in  Komans  v.  14,  viz.  It/  roiig  aiMa^ryjaavrag  instead 
of  ij.ri  a^azTTjCavrag.  In  the  Same  manner  1  John  v.  7  dis- 
turbs the  connection  and  mars  the  general  sense  of  the  context, 
as  Porson  has  shown,  f 

2.  The  mode  of  writing  characteristic  of  the  sacred  authors 
may  be  used  as  a  test  in  judging  of  the  original  reading.  The 
one  most  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  a  writer  should  be 
preferred.  Thus  in  Matt.  xii.  14  the  reading  adopted  by 
Lachmann  and  Tischendorf  i^ik^mng  hi  o/  ^a^iaaToi  (!va(3ovXiov 
iXa^ov  xaT  alrov  is  better  than  that  of  the  received  text, 
because  it  is  in  conformity  with  i.  24 ;  ii.  3  ;  iv.  12 ;  viii.  10, 
14,  18;  ix.  4,  8,  9,  11,  19;  xii.  25;  xv.  21,  29;  xvi.  5,  8, 
13 ;  xvii.  6  ;  xviii.  27,  28,  31,  34.  In  xix.  3  ;  xxvi.  17  aura 
is  rightly  omitted  after  Xsyuvj  since  Matthew  does  not  employ 
in  such  cases  the  dative  of  the  person  or  persons  addressed. 
In  John   xiii.   24,  rig    hny   is  preferable  to    rig    dv    I'lri^  be- 

*  Einleitung,  p.  80,  et  seq.  t  Letters  to  Travis,  p.  397,  et  seq. 


376  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

cause  John  does  not  use  the  optative.  In  1  Corinth,  vi.  2,  ^ 
oux  oihciTi  is  preferable  to  oh%  dihan  (Comp.  Komans  ix.  21; 
xi.  2  ;  1  Corinth,  vi.  9,  16,  19,  %.  r.  X.) 

In  the  application  of  this  canon,  it  should  be  recollected 
that  the  practice  of  each  author  is  not  very  fixed  or  definite. 
His  general  mode  of  writing  may  be  perceived  and  defined, 
without  including  minute  details.  Allowance  should  also  be 
made  for  fluctuation,  arising  doubtless  from  the  feeling  of  free- 
dom inherent  in  the  mind.  The  sacred  writers  indulged  in  the 
license  and  variety  natural  to  others ;  and  as  they  were  un- 
conscious of  restraint,  their  style  was  somewhat  shifting. 
They  were  not  tied  down  with  rigorous  uniformity  to  set 
phrases  or  modes  of  expression ;  and  therefore  the  rule  before 
us  must  not  he  pressed. 

3.  That  reading  should  be  regarded  as  genuine  from  which 
all  the  others  may  be  naturally  and  easily  derived.  Thus  in 
1  Timothy  iii.  16,  if  og  were  the  true  reading,  the  alteration  of 
it  into  kog  would  readily  suggest  itself  to  those  who  knew 
that  the  mystery  of  godliness  related  to  the  Divine  Word.  And 
OS  naturally  gave  rise  to  6'  tlie  neuter,  for  the  sake  of  gram- 
matical accuracy.  But  if  dtog  were  the  original  reading,  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  why  or  how  '6g  could  come  into  the 
mind  of  critics  and  transcribers.  Still  more  difficult  is  it  to 
imagine  o  giving  rise  to  kog  or  og.  Hence  by  this  canon  og 
should  be  preferred. 

4.  The  more  difficult  and  obscure  reading  should  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  plainer  and  easier  one.  Hence  we  prefer  o  ojy/^o- 
Hjivo;  ru)  adiXpi^  in  Matt.  V.  22,  without  s/z^  /  and  o-jtt-w  ya§  rv 
-yiZ^a  in  John  vii.  39,  without  hhoiMhov  or  any  other  ad- 
dition. For  the  same  reason,  we  prefer  the  common  reading 
vavng  oh  xoifiridria6/ii9a-  'rrdvng  bi  aKkayriSoixiQay  1  Corinth.  XV.  51, 
to  that  adopted  by  Lachmann  from  the  Vulgate,  or  to  any  form 
of  the  passage.     So  too  in  Matt.   xxi.  7,  ImTiddiciv  inrdm  avruv 


CRITICAL  RULES.  377 

is  preferable  to  s-ra^w  aOroS,  the  latter  Laving  apparently 
arisen  from  the  desire  to  avoid  the  difficulty  of  referring  the 
pronoun  to  the  two  animals  Inc,  and  itZikog. 

5.  Harsher  readings,  that  is,  such  as  contain  ellipses, 
Hebraisms,  and  solecisms  are  to  be  preferred  to  purer  ones. 
Thus  bixaiosbvri  is  better  than  i}.sri,u,oauvi^  in  Matt.  vi.  1.  So 
too  i}  XiyovGa  in  Rev.  ii.  20  is  better  than  r^v  Xsyovaav.  In 
2  Corinth,  viii.  4,  the  reading  hi^aa&ai  niMag,  at  the  end  of  the 
verse  is  an  elliptical  supplement,  which  should  not  be  received 
into  the  genuine  text. 

6.  Unusual  readings  should  be  preferred  to  those  contain- 
ing usual  forms  or  words.  Thus  7ipv<paiuj  in  Matt.  vi.  18  is 
preferable  to  x^v-rruj.  In  like  manner  ssxuXix^hoi^  not  r/.XiXu,u,svoi, 
is  the  right  reading  in  Matt.  ix.  36.  From  this  it  appears 
that  the  canon  which  is  commonly  applied  to  other  books  can 
hardly  be  followed  here,  viz.  that  grammatical  accuracy  or  pro- 
priety  must  be  used  as  a  test.  The  style  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  is  not  strictly  grammatical,  and  therefore  it  should 
not  be  judged  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  grammarians.  The 
critic  must  be  sparing  in  choosing  readings  for  their  correct- 
ness or  elegance  in  a  grammatical  view,  else  later  ones  will  be 
adopted.  The  same  holds  good  of  rhetorical  grounds,  which 
are  also  a  fallacious  test  of  originality.  We  should  not  expect 
rhetorical  elegance,  or  conformity  to  the  rules  observed  by 
polished  authors,  in  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Pro- 
priety of  sequence,  completeness  of  delineation,  fulness  and 
rotundity  of  style,  were  qualities  unstudied  by  the  sacred  pen- 
men. They  were  not  solicitous  about  sentences  constructed 
according  to  the  precise  forms  of  human  rhetoric.  Hasty,  im- 
perfect, and  negligent  constructions  are  found  in  them.  This 
being  the  case,  it  becomes  a  matter  of  some  moment  to  forbear 
deciding  on  the  genuineness  of  readings  by  grammatical  accu- 
racy or  rhetorical  propriety,  for  it  happens  in  not  a  few  in- 
stances that  the  test  in  question  would  mislead.     Accordingly 


378  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

we  do  not  agree  with  those  editors  who  expunge  the  second 
'in  in  Romans  v.  6.  Lachmann  is  right  in  retaining  it. 
Neither  should  the  clause  in  Romans  xi.  6,  s/'  ds  Jg  'i^ym,  o-jxin 
sari  %ag'$'  ^-^s'  ^"^  £^701'  ohxWi  sdriv  'i^yov^  which  con*esponds  to 
the  preceding  one,  and  makes  the  sentence  full  and  complete, 
be  retained  as  genuine.  We  should  also  expunge  h  rui  (pavs^Oi 
in  Matt.  vi.  18,  and  a^yovg  in  xx.  6. 

7.  Unemphatic  readings  are  preferable  to  emphatic.  Thus 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  v.  30,  the  true  reading  is  6V/ 
fjbsXrj  s(!(jj\v  Tov  <fu,u,aTog  auroO,  without  Ik  rrig  ca^^hg  auTou  xa) 
sx  ruv  odTiuv  avrov.  In  Mark  V.  12,  <7rdvTsg  before  0/  baifiovsg 
should  be  expunged.  So  in  Luke  vi.  38  &  ya^  ij^ir^w  f/,sT^s7Ts 
is  preferable  to  rSj  ya^  avrw  fiir^w  u)  iMsr^sTrs. 

8.  The  shorter  reading  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  longer  in 
cases  where  the  latter  furnishes  suspicion  of  being  an  explana- 
tory insertion.  Thus  from  afiriv  to  ixiivri  in  Mark  vi.  11 
should  be  expunged  from  the  text.  The  same  should  be 
done  to  the  eleventh  verse  of  Matthew  xviii.  In  the  tenth 
verse  of  the  same  chapter,  the  reading  o'l  ayyikoi  aliTuv  dia  'xavrog 
jSXs'Trouffi  X.  r.  X.  is  preferable  to  0/  ayyiXoi  avroiv  h  rSj  oxj^avSj  hia, 
Tavrhg  x,  r.  X. 

9.  Readings  which  favour  ascetic  or  monkish  piety  are 
suspicious.  On  this  ground  we  are  inclined  to  prefer  the  read- 
ing fLaxaoioi  o'l  TX-jvovng  rag  droXag  avroov  in  Rev.  xxii.  14  to 
/Maxd^ioi  01  ToiovvTig  rag  hroXag  avrov.  Hence  perhaps  t^utov 
was  omitted  in  some  documents,  Matt.  vi.  33. 

10.  Readings  which  strongly  favour  orthodox  opinions  are 
suspicious.  Hence  ^£05  in  1  Timothy  iii.  16  was  made  out 
of  og.  1  John  V.  7  may  also  be  referred  to  this  head.  So  too 
dihv  inserted  in  the  fourth  verse  of  Jude's  epistle.  Perhaps  the 
reading  hog  in  John  i.  18  instead  of  vihg  belongs  here. 

11.  Readings  which  yield  a  sense  apparently  false  should 
be  preferred  to  those  which  seem  more  suitable.  Thus  hixana- 
odouv  should  not  give  place  to  riGGd^m  in  Gal.  ii.  1.     'O  ven^og 


CRITICAL    RULES.  379 

in  Matt.  xxi.  31  is  preferable  to  o  -Tr^Zrog.  Hence  the  common 
reading  in  Matt,  xxvii.  9  should  not  be  disturbed.  The  same 
remark  applies  to  Acts  vii.  15,  16. 

These  rules,  it  should  be  observed,  are  never  to  be  used  by 
themselves.  They  are  to  be  applied  only  where  the  external 
evidence  is  divided,  and  nearly  equally  balanced.  Where 
there  is  reason  for  doubting  on  which  side  external  testimonies 
preponderate,  the  internal  considerations  now  stated  may  serve 
to  turn  the  scale  to  a  certain  side.  They  are  not  absolute  rules 
or  unqualified  canons.  If  they  were,  they  would  be  inconsis- 
tent with  one  another.  Thus  Nos.  3  and  7  seem  not  to  agree 
when  looked  at  simply  per  se.  The  utmost  caution  and  care 
must  be  used  in  applying  them.  Many  limitations  guide, 
modify,  and  restrain  their  operation.  Context,  parallels,  his- 
torical circumstances,  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  cha- 
racteristic developments  of  sentiment,  phraseology,  construc- 
tions, use  of  particles,  &c.  in  each  particular  writer,  accompany 
their  exercise.  Intuitive  sagacity  and  tact  are  important  qua- 
lities in  securing  their  successful  use.  Much  depends  on  the 
mind  of  him  who  employs  them.  Critical  feeling  or  sensibility 
is  of  importance.  Griesbach  made  a  good  use  of  them  on  the 
whole.  Few  critics  however  can  employ  them  with  a  judi- 
ciousness equal  to  his. 

We  may  farther  remark,  that  the  canons  or  considerations 
now  described  are  capable  of  reduction  to  a  very  few.  Thus 
from  the  fifth  till  the  last  are  virtually  contained  in  the  fourtli. 
They  are  deducibles  from  the  fourth,  or  rather  the  expansion 
of  it  into  particulars. 

We  have  already  given  rules  for  estimating  the  individual 
witnesses  belonging  to  each  class  of  testimony,  viz.  to  MSS., 
versions,  the  quotations  of  the  fathers ;  to  Avhich  have  now 
been  added  critical  canons  of  an  internal  nature.  It  remains 
for  us  to  look  at  them  together.  We  have  to  do  with  them 
conjointly,  and  not    singly.     The    classes   have   not    only  a 


380  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

separate  but  a  relative  value  towards  one  another.  Consider- 
ing tliem  together^  it  may  be  asked  how  they  should  be  ad- 
justed and  disposed. 

The  first  place  belongs  to  ancient,  uninterpolated,  good, 
Greek  copies.  Their  authority  is  paramount.  From  them 
chiefly  should  the  text  be  derived.  The  nearer  their  testi- 
mony approaches  to  unanimity,  the  greater  certainty  belongs 
to  it.  And  the  authority  of  ancient  MSS,  is  unquestionably 
superior  to  that  of  the  modern,  though  tlie  number  of  the 
latter  is  very  much  greater.  Whoever  undertakes  to  edit  the 
Greek  Testament  should  form  his  text  mainly  from  the  oldest 
and  best  MSS.,  disregarding  the  mass  of  cursive  ones. 

Where  ancient  MSS.  are  not  unanimous  in  a  reading,  or 
the  right  text  is  doubtful,  it  is  necessary  to  consult  the  ear- 
liest and  most  critical  of  the  fathers ;  and  when  they  expressly 
quote  or  comment  upon  a  reading,  or  speak  of  its  being  in 
MSS.  in  their  time,  much  weight  attaches  to  their  testimony. 
Greek  fathers  who  belong  to  this  class,  such  as  Origen  and 
Jerome  who  knew  and  used  Greek  copies,  may  be  put  on  a 
level  with  the  oldest  and  best  MSS. 

The  testimony  of  ancient  versions  is  valuable  in  doubtful 
cases,  especially  where  the  manifest  goodness  of  the  reading 
proves  that  the  variety  has  not  been  caused  by  a  blunder  of 
the  translator.  What  versions  are  most  useful  in  shewing  is, 
the  insertion  or  omission  of  members  ot  sentences  and  im- 
portant words. 

Next  to  versions  in  point  of  value  come  the  bare  and 
casual  quotations  of  the  fathers,  or  the  express  and  unques- 
tionable quotations  of  those  who  are  later  than  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. It  is  not  often  that  the  true  reading  cannot  be  determined 
by  means  of  the  ancient  MSS.,  aided  by  versions  and  the  quo- 
tations of  the  fathers.  When  the  three  sources  are  combined, 
they  are  usually  sufficient  to  indicate  pretty  clearly  the 
genuine  text.     Yet  there  are  cases  where  other  considerations 


CRITICAL    RULES.  381 

are  desirable.  Internal  canons  may  be  fairly  applied,  after 
some  hesitation  is  felt  in  settling  the  text  on  the  basis  of  ex- 
ternal evidence.  Indeed  these  critical  rales  should  be  taken 
aloiig  icitli  the  external  testimonies.  They  should  guide  and 
influence  judgments  based  on  external  documents.  If  it  be 
thought  they  are  not  necessary ^  they  are  at  least  highly  desir- 
able. 

With  these  general  statements,  we  shall  proceed  to  consider 
various  cases  of  doubtful  reading.  Examples  will  be  of  more 
benefit  than  rules ;  for  the  latter  can  only  be  expressed  in 
general  terms.  Minute  limitations  cannot  be  conveniently 
given,  since  they  arise  out  of  particular  cases.  In  all  doubtful 
instances,  we  are  disposed  to  rely  on  the  most  ancient  and 
best  MSS.,  rejecting  readings  found  only  in  modern  copies, 
weighing  the  congruities  or  incongruities  of  such  as  are  sup- 
ported by  the  most  important  testimony,  and  deciding  accord- 
ingly. We  do  not  affirm  that  the  most  ancient  MSS.  may  not 
contain  an  incorrect  reading.  Doubtless  they  agree  in  various 
false  ones.  But  versions,  quotations,  and  internal  congruity 
will  serve  to  point  out  the  mistakes  in  question. 


CHAPTER   XXVIII. 


CETTICAL  EXAMINATION  OF  PASSAGES. 

Having  described  the  various  sources  whence  criticism  derives 
a  correct  text,  we  shall  now  allude  to  the  most  remarkable 
passages  in  the  New  Testament  wliose  authenticity  has  been 
disputed.  There  are  several  such  places,  about  which  critics 
have  entertained  conflicting  opinions.  By  discussing  these, 
the  mode  in  which  the  sources  already  described  may  be 
applied  will  be  seen,  and  the  way  in  which  their  comparative 
merits  should  be  adjusted.  When  one  is  put  in  possession  of 
all  the  evidence,  he  will  be  able  to  judge  himself  of  those  por- 
tions, without  the  uncertainty  of  having  to  rely  on  the  reports 
of  others. 

1  Timothy  iii.  16. 

"  And  without  controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of  godli- 
ness ;  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  spirit, 
seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the 
world,  received  up  into  glory." 

This  passage  has  given  rise  to  much  discussion.  There 
are  three  different  readings  of  it,  which  are  supposed  materially 
to  affect  the  sense. 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  383 

1.  One  reading  is,  Si  i(pavs^u>dn- 

2.  A  second  is,  o  i<pavii(Jj^/i. 

3.  The  common  reading  is,  6ihg  s(pavi§uSn. 

Let  us  consider  the  evidence  in  favour  of"  each — 

1.  This  is  supported  by  A.  a  prima  manu,  by  C.  a  prima 
manu,  F.  G.  17,  73,  181. 

A.  The  controversy  respecting  the  original  reading  of  this 
MS.  is  now  settled.  It  is  matter  of  history.  It  has  been 
ascertained  beyond  a  doubt  that  it  must  have  had  OC  at  first. 
The  present  reading  indeed  is  ©c  or  ^soc,  but  the  two 
transverse  lines,  one  in  O,  making  it  0  or  Theta,  the  other 
above,  marking  a  contraction,  proceeded  from  another  hand 
than  the  original  transcriber.  The  line  above  is  thick  and 
clumsy  compared  with  the  slenderer  and  more  graceful  strokes 
made  by  the  copyist ;  the  same  is  the  case  with  the  transverse 
sti-oke  in  O,  Both  too  differ  in  the  colour  of  the  ink  from  the 
rest  of  the  word.  But  Young,  Wotton,  Mill,  Croyk,  Berri- 
man,  Woide,  Grabe,  who  saw  the  MS.  when  it  was  less  worn 
and  faded  than  it  is  now,  believed  that  its  original  reading 
was  6i6g.  On  the  other  hand,  Wetstein,  Hempelius,  Porson, 
Griesbach,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  and  many  who  have  care- 
fully examined  it  in  recent  times,  believe  that  it  had  Sg  at 
first.  We  think  that  the  more  intently  it  is  looked  at  with 
the  naked  eye  and  with  powerful  glasses  by  such  as  are 
skilled  in  matters  of  the  kind,  the  conclusion  will  appear  the 
more  clear  that  its  real  reading  was  Sg. 

C.  or  Cod.  Ephraemi. 

The  original  reading  of  this  MS.  was  also  formerly  dis- 
puted. Woide,  Weber,  and  Parquoi,  were  in  favour  of  6i6g ; 
Wetstein  and  Griesbach  of  Sg.  The  arguments  of  Gries- 
bach are  valid  and  convincing.*  If  anything  was  wanting  in 
them  to  prove  that  oc  was  the  first  writing,  it  was  supplied 
by  Tischendorf,  who  has  had  most  to  do  with  C.  He  has 
*  Symbolae  Criticae,  vol.  i.  pp.  8-28. 


384  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

shewn  very  clearly  that  both  the  middle  line  of  O  and  the  line 
above  ©c  are  so  drawn  and  have  such  an  appearance  as  to 
betray  a  later  hand  than  the  first.  Both  lines  were  made  by 
the  second  corrector.*  Tregelles  coincides  with  Tischendorf* 
in  believing  that  OC  was  the  primitive  reading. 

In  regard  to  G.  or  the  codex  Bocrnerianus,  it  certainly 
reads  og  not  6'.  Nor  is  there  the  least  trace  in  its  text  of  any 
other  reading  than  oc,  as  any  one  may  see  by  consulting 
Matthaei's  edition  of  it,  which  has  a  fac-simile  of  this  very 
passage. 

As  to  F.  Cod.  Augiensu,  it  is  not  a  transcript  of  G.  as  has 
sometimes  been  stated.  The  idea  of  resolving  its  testimony 
into  that  of  G.  because  it  has  oc  after  G.  altered,  is  absurd. 
G.  has  not  been  changed  from  O  to  oc  j  and  F.  is  not  a  copy 
ofG. 

These  observations  will  shew  that  Griesbach  rightly  quoted 
G.  and  F.  as  supporting  the  reading  oc 

It  is  in  the  Gothic  version.  The  later  Syriac  in  the  mar- 
gin, the  Memphitic,  and  Sahidic  seem  also  to  have  had  it. 
But  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  away  the  evidence 
of  the  margin  of  the  Philoxenian,  the  Memphitic  and  Sahidic 
versions.  Thus  Henderson  asserts,t  that  the  marginal  oc7>  in 
the  later  Syriac  was  only  intended  more  definitely  to  mark 
|crvA|,  God  as  the  immediate  antecedent  to  the  verb,  and 
quotes  various  passages  in  the  version  where  ooi  ioi^]  occurs, 
God  who.  But  this  is  not  apposite.  Whenever  a  marginal 
(not  a  textual)  ooi  can  be  quoted  in  favour  of  this  position,  we 
shall  consider  the  matter  ;  but  till  then  we  must  abide  by  the 
plain  fact  that  ooi  was  meant  to  stand  as  another  reading  for 
the  one  in  the  text. 

In  opposition  to  the  testimony  of  the  Memphitic  and  Sahidic 
for  k,  Laurence  simply  asserts  that  "  they  more  probably  use 

*  Prolegomena  in  Cod.  Ephrem,  Rescript,  p.  39,  et  seq. 
t  In  the  American  Biblical  Repository  for  1832,  p.  34. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION   OF    PASSAGES.  385 

a  relative  connected  with  an  antecedent  expressive  of  the  Avord 
mystery^  in  precise  conformity  with  the  Vulgate,  for  in  both 
the  Coptic  and  Sahidic  the  word  mystery  is  decidedly  proved 
to  be  masculine  by  the  definitive  article  masculine  in  one  case, 
and  the  prefix  in  the  other,  so  that  the  subsequent  relative 
occurs  of  C9urse  in  the  same  gender."  After  this  the  learned 
archbishop  proceeds, — "  Having  thus  proved  that  the  Coptic, 
the  Sahidic,  &c.  do  not  necessarily  read  h  but  most  probably 
0,  &c.  &c."*  This  is  a  curious  way  of  proving  a  thing,  by 
simply  asserting  the  thing  to  he  proved.  In  fact,  not  the 
slightest  particle  of  proof  is  offered  for  6'  in  preference  to  og.  It 
is  possible  that  the  two  versions  in  question  read  o,  but  we 
believe  it  far  more  likely  that  they  had  the  masculine  h.  The 
relative  pronoun  in  both  is  masculine  ;  and  though  the  antece- 
dent representing  the  word  mystery  be  masculine  also,  yet  that 
is  rather  in  favour  of  6'$  than  o,  because  a  word  might  be  chosen 
for  mystery  of  the  masculine  gender  on  purpose  to  have  it  agree 
in  gender  with  the  relative  pronoun. 

Among  the  fathers,  it  is  supported  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
who  writes  thus  : — 'jrXamg&s,  firi  iiboTsg  rag  j^acpag'  fjjriri  [Xir^v  to 
/jjsya  rrtg  ivffelSiiag  fj,vffryi^iov,  rourssriv  X^iarov  og  i(pocvi^wdri,  x.  r.  X. 

And  a  little  after :  iiri  ya^  av  ov^'  stb^ov  oi/j,ai  tI  to  TTig  svst- 
(iiiag  /j,v(TT-/joiov,  55  avTog  tjijuv  6  sx  diov  ■^rargoj  Xoyoc,  og  £(pavi^udt], 
X.  r.  X.t 

"  Ye  err  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  indeed  the  great 
mystery  of  godliness  that  is  Christ  who  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh,"  &c. 

"  For  I  think  the  mystery  of  godliness  can  be  nothing  else 
than  our  very  Logos  himself,  who  proceeded  from  God  the 
Father,  who  w^as  manifested,"  &c. 

This  passage  appears  to  us  to  favour  og  rather  than  6'.  It 
shews  very  clearly  that  Cyril  did  not  read  hog. 

*  Remarks  on  Griesbach's  classification  of  MSS.  pp.  78,  79. 
t  Opera,  ed.  Aubert,  vol.  v.  part  ii.  p.  6,  §§  7,  8. 
VOL.  II.  2  C 


386  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

In  like  manner  the  same  father  reads  o's  in  his  explanation 
of  the  second  Anathematism.  It  is  true  that  Aubert,  the 
editor  of  his  works,  has  in  that  place  9iog ;  but  it  has  been 
clearly  shewn  by  Wetstein  and  Griesbach  that  05  is  the  true 
reading,  because  it  is  found  in  the  MSS.  of  Cyril  and  in 
catenae.  ^ 

In  his  first  oration  on  the  orthodox  faith,  the  same  father 
writes  :  Jca/  o/ioXoyoujasKW?,  x.  r.  X.  d^hg  s<pan^6dri  Iv  ca^xi.  Tig  6  sv 
ea^yJ  (pavipu&sig  y  ri  ^rfkov  on  -TravTrj  n  '/.ai  iravrojg  6  sx  6eov  irar^og 
Xoyog,  %.  T.  X.  And  immediately  after:  xai  outs  -ttou  (pd/Msv ;  oti 
xaS  TtijJag  avdgwrog  a'it'kug,  aXX'  ug  hog  sv  ca^xl,  xai  xai  yi/J'Oi.g 
ysyovdog.* 

"  And  confessedly,  &c.  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh. 
Who  was  it  that  was  manifested  in  the  flesh  ?  Is  it  not  obvious 
that  it  was  he  who  is  absolutely  and  entirely  the  Word  pro- 
ceeding from  God  the  Father  ?  &c.  We  do  not  say  that  he 
was  simply  a  man  as  we  are,  but  as  if  God  in  the  flesh,  and 
born  like  us." 

Here  again  Cyril  has  been  altered,  for  the  very  context 
proves  that  he  did  not  read  dshg  but  og.  Aubert  has  followed 
interpolated  MSS.  in  this  case  also,  as  Griesbach  has  shewn.f 

Henceforth  let  not  the  advocates  of  dshg  adduce  Cyril  in 
their  favour ;  for  it  is  clear  that  he  is  against  that  reading.  He 
may  be  quoted  for  6'?.  Printed  editions  of  his  works  do 
exhibit  dshg ;  but  from  MSS.  and  other  sources  we  conclude 
that  his  language  has  been  altered.  If  he  read  9sog,  why  did 
he  not  appeal  to  1  Timothy  iii.  16  against  the  emperor  Julian 
who  denied  that  Jesus  was  ever  called  God  by  Paul  ?  He 
could  not  have  overlooked  a  reading  so  much  to  his  purpose. 
Yet  he  never  adduces  dshg  from  this  passage  against  Julian. 
Nor  does  he  appeal  to  it  against  Nestorius,  which  we  must 
believe  he  would  have  done  had  he  read  it,  for  it  must  have 
been  very  effective  against  his  great  adversary. 

*  Opera,  ed.  Aubert,  vol.  v.  part  ii.  p.  124. 
t  Symbolae  Criticae,  vol.  i.  p.  52 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   PASSAGES.  387 

And  if  6dg  were  the  original  reading,  how  comes  it  that 
it  was  not  quoted  by  the  fathers  against  the  Arians,  after  the 
commencement  of  the  Arian  controversy.  It  cannot  be  shewn 
that  Athanasius  himself  ever  cited  it,  though  it  be  so  apposite. 

It  is  probable  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  also  read  Sg. 
We  find  the  following  from  him  in  Q^cumenius :  w  /j^vgrripior  i^iS 
niMuv  s78ov  0/  ayysXoi  rov  XpiffTov.  "  O  the  mystery.  The  angels 
saw  Christ  with  us."  The  context  of  this  passage  clearly 
shews  that  Clement  could  not  have  had  ^=05.  He  probably 
read  6';,  like  the  other  Alexandrine  fathers.  It  is  true  that 
the  words  quoted  do  not  exactly  determine  whether  he  read 
h  or  0/  but  \he,j  favour  the  former.  And  yet  they  have  been 
quoted  to  shew  that  Clement  clearly  read  the  text  with  the 
neuter  relative ! 

Origen  has  'Eac  hi  6  s/xhi;  'Irisovg  sv  do^p  dvaXa/j,i3dvss6ai 
XsyriTai.* 

"  If  my  Jesus  is  said  to  have  been  taken  up  to  glory." 

In  another  work,  the  same  writer  is  made  to  say  in  the 
Latin  version  by  Rufinus — "  Is  qui  verbum  caro  factus  ap- 
paruit  positus  in  carue,  sicut  apostolus  dicit,  quia  manifestatus 
est  carne,  justificatus,  etc."t 

"  He  who  became  flesh  as  the  Word  appeared  in  the  flesh, 
as  the  apostle  says — '■  he  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh 
(reading  qui  for  quia),  &c.  &c.'  " 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  passage  favours  the 
reading  6';, 

An  excerpt  in  Latin  from  a  work  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
is  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  council  of  Constantinople,  where 
the  reading  6'?  is  found.  Jerome  on  Isaiah  liii.  11  also  supports 
it.      Pseudo-Chrysostom  has  also  been  cited  for  the  same.J 

*  Contra  Cels.  Lib.  iii.  sect.  31,  0pp.  vol.  i.  Benedictine  edition,  p.  467. 
j"  Comment,  in  epist.  ad  Roman,  cap.  i.  2. 
I  In  a  treatise  printed  in  the  Benedictine  edition  of  Chrysostom, 
vol.  X.  p.  764. 


388  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  in  the  Acts  of  the  council  of  Nice,  may 
also  be  quoted  for  the  same.     Epiphanius  has  it  twice.     In 
like  manner  it  is  highly  probable  that  Chrysostom  read  6'$, 
though  all  printed  editions  of  his  works  make  him  read  kog. 
Editors  have  tampered  with  his  text ;  as  was  not  uncommon. 
He  has  suffered  greatly  in  his  citations  from  Scripture ;  his 
homilies  being  so  often  transcribed.     In  any  case  it  can  be 
shewn   that    Chrysostom   did    not   read    ^£05    as  he  is  made 
to   do    in  the  printed  editions  of  his  works.      No   reliance 
can   be  placed  on   the  cited  loords  of  the  text,  as  that  text 
interspersed  among  his  commentaries,  was    continually  mo- 
dernised by  copyists.     Thus  while  we  read  in  Montfaucon's 
edition  of  his  works*     ....    ilc   'irs^ov   uvdysi   rh  'X^ayiMa,  Xiyuv, 
6sog  s(paviPU)dri  sv  ea^vJ  toutscitiv  6  drjfj^iou^yhg  0)(p6rj,  <pr}Siv,  Iv  ffaezi  /  the 
same  passage  stands  in  Cramer's  catena  :t  slg  eTsoov  avdyii  rh 
crfdyf/jW   on  "  s^avs^uidr}  sv  ffa^/i'i"  8rj/jyiou^yhg  wr   ovToog  fLiya  ri  fjune- 
rrjPiov,  rravray^nu  rr\g  oixov/Msvrjg  rixovG&ri   xa)   i'TtKSn'jQr]  tovto'   /jt,ri    yd^ 
vofxlarig  dir'Kug  ^'/jfiara  iJvai  -^iXd,  oj(pdri  tpriah  sv  aagzl.     Here  dshg  has 
grown  out  of  6V/.     Henceforth  therefore  Chrysostom  should 
not  be  cited  for  ds6g.     And  if  he  did  not  read  thus,  he  must 
have  had  og  or  0,  probably  the  former. 

It  would  also  appear  that  Liberatus,  Victor,  and  Hinc- 
mar  had  MSS.  which  read  og;  or  at  least  they  regarded 
eshg  as  a  late  reading,  since  they  affirm  that  Macedonius 
of  Constantinople,  who  lived  under  the  emperor  Anas- 
tasius  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  changed  og  into 
6(6g. 

A  good  deal  has  been  written  respecting  the  statements  of 
these  witnesses  against  Macedonius.  And  it  must  be  confessed 
that  their  testimony  is  of  little  value,  though  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton laid  great  stress  upon  it.  Considerations  have  been  ad- 
duced which  go  far  to  shew  the  improbable  circumstances 
mixed  up  with  the  story.  Macedonius  doubtless  prefen-ed  dthg 
*  Vol.  xi.  p.  606.  t  Page  31. 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  389 

as  the  reading,  and  may  have  attempted  to  alter  6g  into  ddg 
in  some  copies  ;  but  it  is  very  unlikely  that  he  was  deposed 
and  expelled  from  Constantinople  for  the  alteration  in  question. 
It  is  not  likely  that  the  story  is  ivholly  baseless ;  but  that  it  is 
largely  fictitious  we  fully  believe.  All  that  can  be  safely  in- 
ferred from  it  is,  that  the  witnesses  in  question  reckoned  '6g 
a  prior  reading  to  6ioc,  /  and  that  they  may  have  had  it  in 
documents  before  them. 

The  following  have  also  been  thought  to  favour  05,  though 
several  of  them  might  equally  perhaps  apply  to  0. 

Barnabas  writes,  "Ih,  'TrdXiv  'IriBoug  ov^'  6  u'lhg  dv&^uTov,  aXX' 
6  11/05  ^ov  diov,  ruTTUJ  x.al  bv  ca^xt  <pavipOi&iig* 

The  epistle  to  Diognetus  usually  printed  with  Justin's 
works,  has  acriors/Xs  Xoyov  ha  xoV^aw  <pav7\,  oj  I'ttI  Xaou  a.ri/j,affdsig, 
Old  d':Tosr6Xuv  xyj^v^dsic,  uto  edvuv  h'Tnsrsb&ri.^ 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  says,  rh  /xuffrti^iov  Iv  m^xi  sfavs^ui&n'  y-aXug 
TouTO  X'iyojr   oZrog  6  rj/Msre^og  X6yog.\ 

Basil  writes,  rov  (iiydXw  fivffrri^ioi)  on  6  zvpog  I<pavi^u9rj  sv 
ffa^xi.  xai  ddsrovvrag  rou  fjt,syd7\0v  fivsrri^iov  rriv  "/d^iv  tou  ffiffiyrj/xsvou 
fjbsv  dm  Tuv  aiwvuv,  (pavi^ud'evrog  ds  Ttai^oTg  idioig'  on  6  xv^iog,  x.  r.  X. 
avrog  sfavs^uid/i  sv  sa^xi,  x.  t.  X.  § 

Both  these  last  testimonies  certainly  favour  og. 

Didymus :  "  Secundum  quod  dictum  est :  manifestatur  in 
came."  II 

Theodotus :  6  suirrj^  w(pdr)  -/.aTiujv  roTg  dyysXoig  diori  xa/  iurjy- 
ysXidavro  auron.^ 

Nestorius  :  rb  h  rfi  Malice  yinrjdiv  ....  sipavs^udrj  yd§,  fyjSiv, 
sv  (Sa^Tti  sdixaiuiSrj  sv  'xviv/Mart.** 

*  Epistola,  cap.  xii.  f  Page  501,  ed.  Colon.  1686. 

%  Antirrhet.  advers.  Apollinar.  p.  138. 

§  0pp.  Benedictine  edition,  vol.  iii.  p.  401,  epist.  261.      ||  In  1  Joann.  4. 

%  Epitom.  xviii.  vol.  ii.  p.  973,  in  Clement's  works  by  Potter. 

**  Ap.  Arnob.  junior. 


390  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

2.  0  is  supported  by  the  following  documents  and  autho- 
rities : — 

It  is  in  D.  a  'prima  manu. 

It  is  also  in  the  old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate.  The  old  Sjriac 
may  have  had  '6g  as  well  as  6',  since  the  relative  ?  Dolath 
applies  equally  to  the  masculine  and  neuter  genders.  The 
Syriac  noun  for  [ivsttj^iov  is  masculine,  and  therefore  Dolath 
may  be  considered  masculine  in  this  place  ;  but  that  does  not 
help  us,  since  the  Syriac  noun  means  nothing  else  than  mystery. 
On  the  whole  it  is  impossible  to  decide  whether  it  had  og  or  6'. 
Hendei'son's  reasoning  to  shew  that  it  may  have  had  khg 
equally  well  as  6',  is  a  piece  of  special  pleading  undeserving  of 
notice  5*  and  the  attempt  of  Laurence  to  shew  that  0  not  og  is 
favoured  by  the  version,  proves  a  failure.f  To  say  that 
/j^vgr/j^iovj  or  its  Syriac  representative,  is  the  antecedent  to  the 
Syriac  relative  Dolath,  is  saying  nothing  at  all  in  favour  of  the 
neuter  more  than  the  masculine,  especially  as  the  Syriac  repre- 
sentative of  fji^usrrjgiov  is  mascuUne,  which  the  translator  may 
have  understood  of  a  person. 

In  like  manner  the  Arabic  of  Erpenius  may  favour  either 
0  or  og.  The  same  remarks  apply  to  it  as  to  the  Syriac  ver- 
sion. The  observations  of  Henderson  to  shew  that  its  reading 
is  consistent  with  ddg  are  as  far-fetched  as  they  are  in  relation 
to  the  Peshito.  It  by  no  means  holds  good  that  if  the  trans- 
lator had  intended  to  say  the  mystery  was  manifested,  he  would 
have  used  the  pronoun  (_/JJ^  not  ^\^  because  along  with  the  lat- 
ter is  here  the  pronominal  suffix  referring  to  the  Arabic  repre- 
sentative of  fjbvffrri^iov.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Arabic  read- 
ing of  this  version  applies  indifferently  to  og  and  0. 

The  pronoun  in  the  Ethiopic  is  equally  ambiguous,  and 
therefore  we  cannot  from  it  determine  in  favour  either  of  0  or 
ijg.     Thus  Griesbach  rightly  says,  that  these  three  versions 

*  See  American  Biblical  Repository  for  1832,  p.  19. 
■{■  Remarks  on  Griesbach's  classification  of  MSS.  j^p.  79,  80. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION   OF   PASSAGES,  391 

support  either  oj  or  6',  it  being  impossible  to  decide  for  the 
masculine  or  neuter  relative  from  the  nature  of  the  words 
employed  in  these  versions.  When  Laurence  undertakes  to 
shew  that  they  "  do  not  indifferently  read  05  or  0,  but  indis- 
putably 0,"  he  undertakes  too  much.  The  following  is  his 
proof : — 

"  If  OS  be  the  reading,  it  is  evident  that  the  following  clauses 
of  the  verse  cannot  be  grammatically  connected  hy  a  copulative, 
but  that  the  passage  must  be  translated  as  the  Unitarians 
translate  it,  'He,  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  was  justified,^ 
&c.  But  in  all  the  versions  alluded  to  the  subsequent 
clauses  are  grammatically  connected  hy  a  copulative,  ..... 
that  is,  by  the  same  letter  wau  in  the  different  characters  of 
the  different  languages  expressive  of  the  same  conjunction 
and ;  so  that  the  passage  must  unavoidably  be  rendei'cd, 
*  which  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  and  was  justified  in  the 
Spirit,'  "*  &c. 

If  this  be  the  "indisputable  shewing"  of  these  versions 
having  6'  not  h,  it  amounts  to  no  shewing  at  all.  It  is  wholly 
baseless,  proceeding  on  the  assumption  that  the  following 
clauses  of  the  verse  cannot  be  grammatically  connected  hy  a 
copulative  while  05  is  the  reading ;  and  that  the  rendering  lie 
who  is  incompatible  with  the  use  of  these  copulatives.  Now, 
we  hold  that  the  rendering  of  6'?  he  who,  is  not  incompatible 
with  the  use  of  the  copulatives  in  the  clauses  that  follow. 
What  more  natural,  for  example,  than  the  translation,  "  He 
who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  was  justified  in  the  spirit, 
was  seen  of  angels,  was  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  was  be- 
lieved on  in  the  world,  was  received  up  into  glory ;"  the  whole 
being  one  emphatic  explanation  of  the  mystery  of  godliness  ?  In 
this  view,  which  is  good  Greek  and  good  sense,  the  copula- 
tives inserted  alter  nothing.  They  merely  dilute  the  emphasis  a 
little.  Hence  the  copulatives,  which  perform  so  important  an 
*  Remarks,  &c.  pp.  79,  80. 


392  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

office  in  Laurence's  opinion,  may  be  safely  left  out  of  view  as 
of  no  consequence  whatever. 

The  Armenian  is  as  doubtful  as  the  three  versions  just 
alluded  to.  According  to  Henderson,  "  Dr.  Laurence  main- 
tains that  the  Armenian  version  reads  neither  og  nor  6',  but 
^£os."  *  But  this  is  incorrect,  and  unjust  to  Laurence.  After 
referring  to  two  editions  before  him,  Laurence  proceeds  to  say, 
"  In  both  of  these,  the  following  is  the  literal  rendering  of  the 
passage  in  question : — "  Great  is  the  deep  counsel  of  the  adoration 
of  God,  who  or  which^''  &c.  Now  if  we  connect  the  relative 
with  the  antecedent  God,  the  reading  will  of  course  be  equiva- 
lent to  the  common  one  kk-  But  as  there  are  no  genders  in 
the  language,  it  may  be  connected  with  any  antecedent 
indifferently.  And  it  should  be  added  that  the  phrase  adora- 
tion of  God  may  be  nothing  more  than  a  mere  compound 
expression,  similar  (would  our  own  language  admit  the  combi- 
nation) to  that  of  God-worship,  and  may  thus  simply  corres- 
pond with  fitrj/Ss/ag."  t  Thus  Laurence  holds  the  same 
opinion  respecting  the  Armenian  as  Dr.  Henderson  himself, 
viz.,  that  its  testimony  is  doubtful. 

All  the  Latin  fathers  have  mysterium  or  sacramentum  quod 
manifestatum,  &c.,  even  though  they  understood  it  of  Christ. 
Hilary,  Augustine,  Pelagius,  Julian,  Fulgentius,  Idacius, 
Ambrosiaster  (Hilary  the  deacon),  Leo  the  Great,  Victorinus, 
Cassian,  Gregory  the  Great,  Bede,  Chrysologus,  Martin  the 
tirst,  &c.  Indeed  all  the  Latin  fathers  except  Jerome  and 
Epiphanius  the  deacon  are  in  favour  of  6'  the  neuter. 

3.  dioc,  is  supported  by  D.  a  tertia  manu  J.  K.  and  almost 
all  the  cursive  MSS. 

It  is  also  in  the  Arabic  of  the  Polyglott  and  the  Slavonic 
version.  In  favour  of  it  we  also  have  Didymus  (De  Trinitate) 
but  on  1  John  4,   he  rather  favours  oc,  as  we  have  already 

*  See  American  Biblical  Repository  for  1832,  p.  20. 
+  Remarks,  &c.  pp.  80,  81. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  393 

seen ;  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Theodoret,  Eutlialius,  Mace- 
donius,  John  of  Damascus,  Theophylact,  QEcumenius.  Of  the 
Latin  fathers,  Epiphanius  the  deacon  (in  the  eighth  century) 
is  the  only  one  who  has  Deus.  Chrysostom  should  no  longer 
be  quoted  out  of  the  printed  editions  as  favourable  to  this 
reading ;  for  there  is  little  doubt  that  he  had  '6g. 

The  only  ones  of  these  witnesses  who  can  be  said  to  have 
much  weight  are  Theodoret  and  Dionysius.  The  former  com- 
ments thus  on  the  passage  :  fx^var^iov  ds  aurb  adXsi,  ug  avudiv  fj^ev 
v^oo§ia6iv.  (0£o$  (cpavsgdodrj  iv  safAi).  hog  ya§  uiv,  xai  kov  vihg,  xa/ 
aS^arog  i^oov  rriv  <p\)Siv,  br^Xog  a-7ra(Si]i  svavd^uTryjffag  lyhsro.  "Satpug  ds 
Tjfiag  rag  8uo  (phaig  sdida^sv,  sv  aa^Til  ya^  rrjv  &iiav  scpri  ipavspcudijvai 
pvffiv.* 

"  He  calls  it  a  mystery  as  having  been  foreordained  from 
the  beginning.  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh.  For  being 
God  and  the  Son  of  God,  and  having  an  invisible  nature,  he 
became  manifest  to  all  by  being  incarnate.  Thus  he  has 
clearly  taught  us  the  two  natures,  for  he  said  that  the  divine 
nature  was  manifested  in  the  flesh." 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria  thus  writes :  Elg  hrtv  o  X^igHg,  6 
d)v  iv  ru)  Tar^/  gvvatoiog  Xoyog'  h  aurou  •T^ocwffoi',  ao^arog  hog,  nal 
o^arhg  yzn'MDiog'  (dihg  yag  s(pavi^uidri  Iv  6a^xi.'\  "  Christ  is  one,  the 
co-eternal  Logos  who  is  in  the  Father.  There  is  one  person 
of  him  who  is  the  invisible  God,  and  who  became  visible ;  for 
God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh." 

Though  we  cannot  say  that  Dionysius  here  cites  the  words 
of  1  Timothy  iii.  16  expressly,  yet  it  is  probable  that  he  had 
in  his  mind  the  passage  before  us.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether 
he  has  been  rightly  edited.  His  language  seems  to  have  been 
tampered  with,  for  the  sake  of  the  Vulgate. 

This  is  quite  probable,  when  we  consider  that  none  of  the 
Alexandrine  fathers  read  hog.     They  either  are  silent  respect- 

*  In  ep.  1,  ad  Timoth.  vol.  iii.  p.  478,  ed.  Paris,  1642. 
t  Epist.  ad  vers.  Paul  Samosat. 


394  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

ing  the  passage,  which  in  this  case  is  almost  equivalent  to 
their  not  reading  hhg^  inasmuch  as  it  was  so  opportune  against 
the  Arians,  Nestorians,  and  others ;  or  they  shew  their  prefer- 
ence for  h'  Cyril,  Clement,  Origen,  Athanasius,  &c.  could 
not  have  had  diog.  And  we  must  believe  that  Dionysius  was 
not  singular  among  the  Alexandrine  fathers.  He  favoured 
the  Alexandrine  reading,  which  is  undoubtedly  '6g. 

No  importance  can  be  attached  to  Didymus  a  blind  man, 
who  reads  khg  in  his  work  on  the  Trinity,  but  seems  to  prefer 
og  in  another  place,  viz.  "  Secundum  quod  dictum  est :  mani- 
festatur  in  carne"  (1  John  4).  As  the  Alexandrines  did  not 
know  6ihg^  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  Didymus  formed  no 
exception.  We  do  not  tlierefore  put  him  among  the  witnesses 
for  it,  believing  that  he  has  suffered  from  meddling  tran- 
scribers or  correctors.  Nor  can  any  weight  be  assigned  to  the 
testimony  of  Euthalius  in  favour  of  khg,  though  one  should 
think  so  from  the  manner  in  which  Henderson  brings  it  for- 
ward. Euthalius,  says  he,  "  reads  in  like  manner  khg  s<pav- 
£pM&rt  Iv  aapx'j  '  God  manifest  in  the  flesh ; '  and  entitles  the 
chapter  or  division  in  which  the  words  occur,  'repi  kiag  eapyMSiug, 
'  of  the  divine  incarnation.'  "  *  One  would  naturally  conclude 
fi'om  these  words,  that  Euthalius  had  expressly  quoted  the 
passage  with  khg ;  whereas  he  merely  gives  the  heading  of  the 
section  in  which  it  occurs,  the  title  'jcipi  kiag  (ra^xwo-swg,  of  the 
divine  incarnation ;  which  he  might  equally  do  if  og  or  6'  had 
been  the  reading ;  since  the  fathers  often  applied  the  mystery 
(fji^uffryipiov)  to  the  person  of  Christ.  Thus  Euthalius's  testi- 
mony ceases  to  be  explicit  or  valuable.  It  is  a  mere  inference, 
and  that  an  uncertain  one,  that  he  found  khg  in  the  Greek 
text. 

The  authority  of  Macedonius  can  hardly  be  pleaded  in 
favour  of  khg  ;  because  Hincmar,  Victor,  and  Liberatus  said 
that  he  had  corrupted  the  text  or  changed  og  into  kog.  If 
*  American  Biblical  Repository  for  1S32,  p.  39. 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   PASSAGES.  395 

Macedonius  did  actually  alter  Sg  into  dsbg  in  some  copies,  we 
cannot  tell  that  he  made  the  change  after  Greek  MSS.  He 
may  not  have  followed  them  at  all.  But  indeed  the  story 
wants  a  good  foundation. 

As  to  Damascenus,  Theophylact,  and  (Ecumenius,  they 
are  all  too  late  to  be  of  much  value. 

Other  writers  are  quoted  for  6i6s.  Thus  Ignatius  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians  writes :  ETg  lat^og  Istiv  (sapmrng  n  xai 
Tvtu/iar/xic,  yivvrirog  Tiai  dyivvrjTog,  sv  (Sapxi  yivoijjiMog  &i6g.^ 

When  writing  thus  Ignatius  may  or  may  not  have  had 
1  Timothy  iii.  16  in  his  mind;  but  it  is  neither  proved 
nor  implied  that  he  took  the  words  from  the  passage  with 
hog.  He  could  have  employed  such  phraseology  without 
having  read  1  Timothy  iii.  16  in  any  shape.  The  same  re- 
marks will  apply  to  another  place  in  his  epistle  which  has 
likewise  been   cited  on  this  subject:    lloog  oZv  spavspudri   roTg 

aicoffiv 'xaXaioc  jSaffiXsia,  diefdilpsro,   6eou  avdpuTivug  (pavipou- 

ju,hov.     Here  too  the  Syriac  recension  has  vhu  for  dsov.  f 

Hippolytus  is  also  cited  in  support  of  the  same  reading : 
OZrog  'ffposXdojv  ?Jg  Koff/J^ov  hhg  sv  ac/i[iaTi  s(pavipudr}.  ^ 

This  is  not  a  quotation  of  1  Timothy  iii.  16.  It  is  perhaps 
a  free  reference  to  it,  from  which  nothing  can  be  inferred  in 
favour  of  the  reading  diog. 

The  following  have  also  been  quoted  from  Athanasius  : — 

(pojSsTffdai  TTjv  Ts^i  Tov  Trikixo{)TO-j  ixyarripou  ^rirriGtv,  ofj^oXoyiTv  bs  oti 
'mpuH^coTai  dsog  sv  tSa^Ki  Ttara  rr^v  a'ZoaroXixr^y  Ta^ddodiv. 

But  this  occurs  in  the  tract  De  Incarnatione  verbi  Dei, 
which  is  now  universally  rejected  as  Athanasius's. 

Another  passage  is  :  "E^ovai  ydg  d-Troero'kov  cvyyvui/Mov  ahroig 
vs'Movra,  xai  olovsi  %£/^a  avroTg  sv  tui  X'sysiv  sTirsivovTa,  oti  xai  6fj,oXoy~ 
oii,'Jt,svug    ijj'sya    stsri     to    Tr^g    suffs[3siag     fiuaTTj^iov,     dsog     s(pavs^wdri    sv 

But  most  MSS.  omit  this  passage.  In  one  MS.  it  is  in 
*  Cap.  7.      t  Cap.  19.      J  Advers.  Noet.  cap.  17.      §  Epist.  4  ad  Serap. 


396  BIBLICAL   CEITICISM. 

the  margin,  not  in  the  text.  Hence  it  must  be  regarded  as 
the  gloss  of  some  other  person,  and  not  Athanasius's  own. 
Henderson  has  suppressed  the  fact  that  most  MSS.  of  Athana- 
sius  omit  this  passage. 

Gregory  Nyssene  is  cited  in  favour  of  koc;  Thus  he 
writes  :  itnG^ivnc,  6V/  akri^ug  dsog  Ifan^uiSri  sv  ffa^xi,  l/nTvo  ii,6vov 
aXriSivh  r^g  svasjSiiag  /jyVSryjgiov  shat,  %.  r.  X. 

Again  :  Tdvreg  01  rbv  X6'yov  nriphasovng  sv  rouru)  rb  Sau/Ma  rou  /Auff- 
rripiou    7iara/X7jvJouair    on   diog  sfavspu&rj    sv    capxi,  on  6   \dyog    aap^ 

Sy'iViTO. 

Again  :  T//io^2w  hi  dia^^rj8f]v  (3oa,  on  6  dsog  s<pavipcti&ri  h 
eapxl.  * 

These  passages  are  explicit  in  shewing  that  Gregory  had 
hog,  provided  the  printed  copies  of  his  works  can  be  relied 
on.  But  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  these ;  especially  as 
elsewhere  he  read  differently,  probably  oj,  or  as  others  sup- 
pose, 0. 

The  apostolic  constitutions  are  also  cited  on  the  same 
side  :   ^sog  xv^iog  6  I'mipavslg  tjixiTv  h  ca^x.!.  f 

Here  there  is  no  citation,  nor  do  the  words  at  all  justify 
the  inference  that  1  Timothy  iii.  16  had  6s6g. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus  is  also  cited  here,  or  rather  Apol- 
linaris  in  Photius :  6shg  h  <fapxi  (pavspudslg.  If  this  be  derived 
from  1  Timothy  iii.  16,  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  it,  as  it 
is  given  by  Photius  of  Constantinople  in  the  tenth  century, 
who  had  probably  no  other  reading  in  the  text  than  that  of 
the  received  text  which  is  contained  in  all  the  Constantinopo- 
litan  copies. 

Let  us  now  review  the  external  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
three  forms  of  our  present  text. 

"Og  is  supported  by  A.  or  the  codex  Alexandrinus  ;  by  C. 
or  the  cod.  Ephremi ;  by  F.  or  the  cod.  Augiensis ;  and  by 
G.  or  the  cod.  Boernerianus.  Thus  two  of  the  most  ancient 
*  Orat.  X.  contra  Eunom.  0pp.  vol.  ii.  p.  265,  ed.  Paris  1615.      t  vii.  26. 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  397 

and  valuable  MSS.,  both  belonging  to  the  fifth  century,  have 
this  reading ;  while  G.  of  the  ninth  century,  a  valuable  MS. 
of  that  age,  is  on  the  same  side ;  and  F.  too,  contemporary 
with  G.  Indeed  F.  and  G.  were  both  taken  from  an  older 
codex. 

"O  is  supported  by  D.  or  the  Clermont  MS.,  an  ancient  and 
valuable  document  belonging  to  the  end  of  the  sixth  century. 

@ehg  is  supported  by  a  corrector  of  D.  or  the  Clermont 
MS.,  who  could  scarcely  have  been  older  than  the  eighth  cen- 
tury ;  by  J.  a  MS.  of  the  ninth  century  ;  and  by  K.  of  the 
same  age.  It  has  also  almost  all  the  cursive  or  later  MSS.  in 
its  favour. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  oj  is  best  attested  hy 
ancient  and  valuable  MS.  authority ;  while  6'  has  but  one 
uncial  MS.  in  its  favour.  Hence  on  the  ground  of  MS. 
evidence  we  should  adopt  the  former  reading.  When  Dr. 
J.  P.  Smith  writes,  "  if  we  regard  the  authority  of  MSS. 
alone,  in  every  mode  of  estimating  that  branch  of  the  evi- 
dence, and  upon  every  system  of  families,  recensions,  or 
classes,  he  is  quite  satisfied  that  the  reading  GoD  should  be 
decisively  preferred,"*  he  evinces  a  most  strange  inclination  for 
number  in  MSS.,  neglecting  their  antiquity  ;  for  it  is  only  by 
counting  not  weighing  authorities  that  any  one  could  prefer 
khg  to  og.  But  indeed  every  critic  who  knows  that  '6g  has 
the  uncial  codices  A.  C.  F.  G.  in  its  favour,  and  that  6ihg  is 
supported  only  by  D***  J.  and  K.  of  the  uncials,  will  not 
hesitate  for  a  moment  to  disregard  the  crowd  of  cursive  MSS. 
as  well  as  D***  J.  and  K.  by  the  side  of  A.  C.  F.  and  G. 
which  take  us  up  to  the  fifth  century. 

With  respect  to  versions — '  Og  has  in  its  favour  the  Gothic, 
margin  of  the  Philoxenian,  and  in  all  probability  the  Mem- 
phitic  and  Sahidic. 

*  The  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  vol.  ii.  p.  384,  fourth 
edition. 


398  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

"O  is  supported  by  the  old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate. 

Qshg,  on  the  other  hand,  is  supported  by  the  Arabic  of  the 
Poljglott  and  the  Slavonic  version. 

Here  the  evidence  of  versions  is  rather  in  favour  of  og. 
Still  the  preponderance  in  this  respect  of  oj  over  6'  is  small ; 
since  the  old  Latin  is  of  great  weight.  But  number  is  suffi- 
cient to  outweigh  every  other  consideration. 

With  respect  to  the  fathers,  their  testimony  is  contradictory 
and  uncertain,  as  we  have  already  seen. 

"Os  is  supported  by  Epiphanius,  Cyril,  Chrysostom,  and 
Jerome ;  ivith  certainty  by  Epiphanius  and  Jerome  j  in  all 
probability  by  Cyril  and  Chrysostom. 

"O  is  supported  by  almost  all  the  Latin  fathers  except 
Jerome.  It  does  not  clearly  occur  in  any  of  the  Greek 
fathers. 

Qihg  is  clearly  favoured  by  Theodore t,  Damascene,  (Ecu- 
menlus,  and  Theophylact.  Here  again  oc.  is  best  supported. 
It  is  manifestly  sustained  by  more  ancient  authorities  than 
khc;  and  as  to  6',  the  evidence  of  the  Latin  fathers  cannot 
be  regarded  as  independent  of  the  Latin  version.  They  used 
and  quoted  the  versio  vetus,  and  afterwards  the  revised  copy 
of  it  made  by  Jerome.  Hence  they  are  witnesses  for  the 
Greek  text  only  through  the  Latin  translation. 

In  this  manner  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  og  is  best 
supported  by  the  external  evidence  in  its  threefold  division  of 
MSS.,  versions,  and  fathers. 

We  come  now  to  internal  evidence. 

"Og  is  the  most  difficult  reading.  It  appears  harsh  and 
ungrammatical.  Hence  it  would  be  most  readily  altered. 
Again,  the  origin  of  the  other  two  can  be  better  explained 
from  it  than  its  rise  fi'om  either  of  them.  It  is  easy  to  see 
how  prone  copyists  would  be  to  change  Sg  into  o  in  order  to 
make  it  agree  in  gender  with  the  antecedent  {^verri^iov.  They 
knew    also    that   the    passage   was   commonly   explained   of 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   PASSAGES.  399 

Christ ;  aud  as  most  MSS.  were  in  the  hands  of  the  orthodox, 
they  might  change  OC  into  0C.  In  this  manner  it  would 
be  a  better  weapon  against  such  heretics  as  impugned  the 
proper  deity  of  Christ.  Certainly  the  tendency  in  early  times 
would  be  to  change,  by  a  slight  process,  og  into  ^£05.  Little 
suspicion  would  attach  to  the  person  or  persons  who  did  so, 
amid  the  anxiety  to  uphold  the  divinity  of  Christ's  person. 
The  altered  reading  would  be  generally  welcomed  and  adopted. 
And,  improbable,  as  we  naturally  reckon  it  to  be  that  mention 
should  have  been  made  of  0$  being  changed  into  hog,  since  the 
writings  of  those  likely  to  speak  of  it  are  so  few,  yet  mention 
is  made  of  it  in  the  case  of  Macedonius.  Whatever  truth  there 
be  in  that  account,  one  thing  at  least  is  certain,  that  some  per- 
sons about  or  soon  after  the  time  of  Macedonius,  regarded  the 
readiuar  os  as  the  orioinal  out  of  which  arose  diog. 

On  the  other  hand,  had  dshg  been  early  changed  into  6'?, 
we  should  most  probably  have  heard  of  it  in  history.  The 
orthodox  must  have  noticed  the  alteration,  and  would  doubt- 
less have  reprobated  it.  They  would  at  once  have  detected 
and  exposed  it  as  a  corruption  of  the  text  made  to  impugn  a 
great  doctrine  for  which  they  contended  so  strenuously.  Yet 
we  do  not  read  in  any  ancient  writer  of  the  text  having  been 
corrupted  from  dshg  into  6'?.  Hence  it  may  be  inferred  that 
it  was  not  so  changed.  The  origin  of  og  is  not  accounted  for 
by  the  fathers  in  that  way — a  way  in  which  it  was  most 
natural  for  them  to  explain  it  had  they  not  felt  that  it  was  the 
true  reading. 

If  it  be  said  that  og  may  have  arisen  by  accident  or  the 
carelessness  of  transcribers  from  hog,  we  answer,  that  even 
then  it  would  soon  have  been  noticed  and  restored.  An  acci- 
dental alteration  would  soon  have  been  converted  by  the  fathers 
into  a  designed  one  on  the  part  of  heretics,  had  og  become  as  ex- 
tensively diffused  as  we  judge  from  A.  and  C.  that  it  really  was. 

But  various  objections  have  been  made  to  6$. 


400  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

It  does  not  accord  with  the  laws  of  grammatical  construc- 
tion. This  has  been  often  asserted  but  never  proved.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  refer  Sg  to  fmerrjpiov  as  its  simple  and  sole 
antecedent.  Neither  is  it  necessary  to  refer  it  to  kov  ^uvrog 
with  a  parenthesis  between.  We  do  not  adopt  either  of  those 
constructions ;  and  therefore  all  considerations  based  on  them, 
and  tending  to  shew  that  05  is  neither  good  sense  nor  good 
Greek,  may  be  left  for  those  whom  they  concern. 

We  are  disposed  to  understand  og  in  the  sense  of  he  who. 
To  this  construction  too  a  common  objection  has  been  made,  that 
it  is  foreign  to  the  Greek  idiom  both  classical  and  Hellenistic. 
It  is  said,  for  example,  that  the  regular  Greek  construction 
would  require  6  tpavspu6sig.  The  participle  with  the  article 
prefixed  is  affirmed  to  be  proper,  as  in  the  epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians  i.  23, 6  diMxm  ri[i,ag,  n.  r.  X,  he  that pei'secutecl  US.  In  oppo- 
sition to  this  argumentation  we  hold,  that  oV,  in  the  sense  of 
he  who,  is  good  Greek.  It  includes  in  itself  both  the  demon- 
strative and  relative.  But  it  has  been  said,  that  where  there 
is  such  an  usage  of  05  as  that  before  us,  in  the  nominative, 
it  is  not  used  in  the  sense  of  he  who,  but  whosoever,  i.e.  it  is  not 
employed^jar^«cM/tt?'?y  or  specifically,  but  generically.  It  must  be 
equivalent  to  i's  lav  or  og  oiv.  In  answer  to  this,  we  believe  that 
the  usage  of  h  in  this  way  may  be  rendered  sufficiently  specific 
by  the  preceding  context.  So  John  iii.  34,  Luke  vii.  43,  and 
other  places.  We  cannot  see  therefore  any  valid  objection  to 
the  rendering  he  who.  It  is  good  Greek,  good  sense,  and  has 
no  internal  consideration  against  it.  But  it  should  be  remarked 
that  we  do  not  take  the  clauses  was  justified  in  the  Spirit,  &c. 
&c.  as  making  up  the  predicate  of  the  preposition  of  which  bg 
is  the  subject ;  but  all  the  clauses,  including  bg  i<pavspu6yi,  as 
an  explanatory  and  emphatic  adjunct  to  the  mystery  of  god- 
liness. It  is  intended  to  point  out  in  what  the  mystery  of  godli- 
ness consists,  shewing  that  it  is  concentrated  and  embodied 
in  THE  PERSON  WHO  was  manifested  in  the  fiesh,  justified  in  the 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  401 

spirit^  seen  of  angels,  preached  among  the  Gentiles,  believed  on 
in  the  ivorld,  received  up  into  glory.  The  proper  antecedent  or 
subject  to  which  &c  iipavspudri  refers  is  implied  in  /Muoryipiov  rni 
iiiffsfSsias  preceding.* 

In  favour  of '6  the  neuter,  it  is  said  to  be  the  more  obscure 
reading.  We  believe  this  to  be  incorrect.  "Oj  is  the  ob- 
curest  reading  of  the  three.  How  could  o  be  the  obscurest 
reading,  when  the  fathers  generally  interpreted  to  /xustti^iov  of 
the  person  of  Christ  ?  The  fathers  did  not  find  the  neuter 
difficult,  else  they  would  have  altered  it.  They  found  og  much 
more  obscure ;  and  therefore  they  changed  it  into  hog  or  6'. 

In  favour  of  o  it  is  likewise  alleged,  that  this  reading  over- 
ran all  the  versions  used  by  the  churches  of  Christ  in  the  east 
and  west — an  extravagant  and  incorrect  assertion,  as  is  abun- 
dantly evident  from  what  has  been  already  advanced. 

Against  o,  internal  evidence  has  been  urged.  It  is  asked, 
How  could  a  mystery  be  manifested  in  the  flesh,  or  justified  in 
the  spirit,  or  received  up  into  glory  ?  In  answer  to  this  we 
might  urge  the  interpretation  assigned  by  the  fathers  to 
H,xj6Tr,piov,  viz.  the  person  of  Christ.  But  here  again  we  are  told, 
that  the  fathers  were  wrong  in  understanding  /xugrripiov  as  a 
designation  of  Christ,  because  the  usage  of  the  term,  wherever 
it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  is  adverse.  The  mystery  of 
godliness  must  mean,  it  is  said,  some  mysterious  doctrine  relating 
to  Christ^  but  cannot  designate  Christ  himself  as  the  mysteri- 
ous person.  There  may  be  some  force  in  this  objection ;  but 
there  cannot  be  much.  The  person  of  Christ  was  itself  a 
mystery ;  and  we  should  not  therefore  object  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  /MvffTr,f>iov  given  by  the  fathers.  And  we  should  the 
less  object  to  it,  if  it  were  true,  as  has  been  said,  that  Porson 
agreed  with  them  in  interpreting  it  as  a  designation  of  Christ's 

*  See  Winer's  Grammatik  des  neutestamentlichen  Spracidioms,  p.  527, 
fourth  edition  ;  De  Wette's  Exegetisches  Handbuch  on  1  Timothy  iii.  16  ; 
and  Huther  in  McT/er's  Kommentar,  Abtheilung  xi.  p.  135. 

VOL.    H.  2d 


402  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

person.  But  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  Porson 
did  so.  Kidd,  who  collected  and  arranged  Porson's  tracts, 
says,  "  De  sensu  parum  aut  nihil  refert ;  cum  personam 
circumlocutione  significant  Graeci,  quam  citissime  ad  ipsam 
personam  revertuntur.  "Oj  non  rh  ^rjrhvj  sed  to  (rrj,u,amfLsvov 
respicit."*     These  are  not  Porson's  words  or  sentiments. 

In  favour  of  khg  we  can  see  no  internal  evidence ;  for  it  is 
manifest  that  it  arose  from  oc,  not  vice  versa. 

Against  it,  we  may  adduce  the  absence  of  the  article  before 
kog^  which  should  be  in  the  subject  of  a  proposition  like  the 
present.  We  should  certainly  expect  it  in  this  place.  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  found  two  hundred  and  fifty-seven  cases,  in  which 
the  article  is  prefixed  to  khg  when  it  is  the  subject  of  a  pro- 
position. On  the  other  hand,  he  noticed  four  instances  of 
exception  to  that  prevailing  usage,  viz.  2  Corinth,  v.  19 ;  Gal. 
ii.  6,  iii.  7 ;  1  Thes.  ii.  S.f 

It  is  also  against  khc^  that  some  at  least  of  the  expressions 
in  the  passage  do  not  agree  well  with  it.  This  is  especially 
the  case  with  'ditp&ri  ayyiKoig. 

In  adopting  o'e  as  the  true  reading,  we  are  countenanced  by 
the  best  critics  such  as  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf, 
De  Wette,  Huther. 

On  the  other  hand  I  is  approved  by  Grotius,  Sir  Isaac 
Newton,  Wetstein,  Norton. 

The  common  reading  is  sanctioned  by  Mill,^  Bengel, 
Matthaei,  Rinck,  and  many  others. 

In  closing  this  dissertation,  we  believe  a  fair  case  to  be 
made  out,  as  far  as  the  present  state  of  evidence  warrants,  in 
favour  of  6';.  But  the  general  sense  is  not  materially  different, 
whether  we  read  h,  6',  or  kog.  The  meaning  is  much  the 
same,  whichever  be  adopted.  Hence  we  cannot  enter  into  the 
reasons  of  such  as  believe  the  text  to  be  very  important  in  a 

*  Tracts  and  Miscellaneous  Criticisms  of  the  late  R.  Porson,  by  Kidd,  p.  291 . 
•j-  American  Biblical  Repository  for  1832,  p.  76. 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    PASSAGES.  403 

theological  view.  It  is  by  no  means  decisive  either  for  or 
against  the  proper  divinity  of  Christ.  Too  much  stress  has 
been  laid  upon  it,  in  doctrinal  controversies  respecting  the 
person  of  tlie  Redeemer.  We  fully  agree  with  Mr.  Stuart  in 
saying :  "  I  cannot  feel  that  the  contest  on  the  subject  of  the 
reading  can  profit  one  side  so  much,  or  harm  the  other  so  much, 
as  disputants  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  have  sup- 
posed. Whoever  attentively  studies  John  xvii.  20-26 ;  1  John 
i.  3,  ii.  5,  iv.  15,  16,  and  other  passages  of  the  like  tenor,  will 
see  that  '  God  might  be  manifest'  in  the  person  of  Christ, 
without  the  necessary  implication  of  the  proper  divinity  of  the 
Saviour ;  at  least  that  the  phraseology  of  Scripture  does  admit 
of  other  constructions  besides  this ;  and  other  ones  moreover, 
which  are  not  forced.  And  conceding  this  fact,  less  is  deter- 
mined by  the  contest  about  og  and  hhg  in  1  Timothy  iii.  16, 
than  might  seem  to  be  at  first  view."* 

1  John  V.  7. 

This  verse  has  been  the  subject  of  many  controversies 
during  the  last  three  centuries — of  controversies  however  which 
have  proved  of  great  benefit  to  biblical  criticism,  because 
various  Greek  MSS.  and  ancient  versions  have  been  examined 
with  greater  accuracy  than  they  might  otherwise  have  been. 

In  the  received  text  the  seventh  and  eighth  verses  stand 
thus : — o-nrPiTi  sJgiv  o'l  /j,apTV^ovvTig  [Ji/  tuj  ovpavuJ,  6  Harrip,  b  Aoyog, 
xa/  rh  ciyiov  TLvsvfxa'  zal  ouroi  o'l  rpug  sV  siei.  Kai  rpug  sJan  o'l  (i,CLp- 
rvpovvrsg  sv  rfj  yfj]  to  Tvsv/jja,  x,al  rh  vdcup,  x.ai  to  al/ia,'   xai  o'l  rpiTg  slg 

TO  h  ilSlV. 

"  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost :  and  tliese  three  are 
one.  And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the 
spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood :  and  these  three  agree  in 
one." 

*  American  Biblical  Repository  for  1832,  p.  79. 


404  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

1.  About  180  cursive  MSS.  containing  the  Catholic 
epistles  have  been  examined.  In  addition  to  these  there  are 
in  these  epistles  the  uncial  codices  A.  B.  C.  G.  J.  All  these 
omit  the  passage  except  C.  which  is  here  imperfect.  H.  of 
the  Acts  is  not  uncial  in  regard  to  the  Catholic  epistles ;  for 
they  are  written  in  cursive  characters  by  a  later  hand  than  the 
Acts.  In  short,  no  Greek  MS.  written  before  the  fifteenth 
century  has  the  disputed  verse.  Thus  MS.  evidence  is  de- 
cidedly against  it. 

In  like  manner  the  verse  is  wanting  in  all  the  ancient 
versions.  It  is  not  in  the  Vulgate,  the  old  Syriac,  and  the 
Philoxeniau  versions.  It  is  absent  from  the  Memphitic  and 
Sahidic.  Nor  is  it  found  in  the  Ethiopic,  the  Armenian, 
the  Slavonic,  the  Arabic  in  Walton,  and  that  published  by 
Erpenius. 

In  modern  editions  of  the  Peshito  it  is  sometimes  found ; 
but  not  in  the  genuine  Syriac.  Tremellius  first  translated  it 
from  Greek  into  Syriac,  and  placed  it  in  the  margin,  whence 
later  editors  took  it  into  the  text.  In  recent  editions  of  the 
Slavonic  it  is  also  found ;  but  not  in  the  MSS.  or  older  edi- 
tions.    The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Armenian  version. 

But  the  Vulgate  has  the  passage  now.  In  the  Clementine 
edition  of  the  Vulgate  it  stands  thus  : — "  Quoniam  tres  sunt 
qui  testimonium  dant  in  coelo :  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus 
sanctus  :  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.  Et  tres  sunt,  qui  testimonium 
dant  in  terra  :  Spiritus,  et  aqua,  et  sanguis :  et  hi  tres  unum 
sunt."  And  it  is  found  in  the  majority  of  its  MSS.,  especially 
after  the  eighth  century.  Yet  it  is  absent  from  the  oldest  and 
the  best,  such  as  the  codd.  Amiatinus,  Harleianus,  Alcuin's 
copy.  Even  all  the  modern  MSS.  do  not  exhibit  the  verse ; 
and  those  which  have  it  express  it  in  various  forms,  as  the 
codd.  Toletanus,  Demidovianus,  &c.  Thus  the  last  mentioned 
codex  has  "  Quia  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  terra^ 
spiritus  J  aqua  J  et  sanguis^  et  tres  unum  sunt.     Et  tres  sunt  qui 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATON   OF   PASSAGES.  405 

testimonium  dant  in  coeloy  pater^  verhum^  et  sjn'ritus,  et  hi  tres 
unum  sunt ;  while  cod.  Tolet.  nearly/  agrees  with  it.  In  both 
the  eightli  verse  is  put  before  the  seventh,  which  is  tlie  more 
usual  order  in  the  older  copies  that  have  the  passage.  And  with 
regard  to  the  copies  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  that  have  the  text,  it 
also  deserves  mention,  that  those  prior  to  the  nintli  century  do 
not  exhibit  it  a  prima  manu  ;  while  in  many  it  is  found  in  the 
margin  from  a  more  recent  hand.  One  noticed  by  Person  has 
the  seventh  verse  both  before  and  after  the  eighth  ;  many  omit 
after  the  three  earthly  witnesses,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt ;  while 
others  add  to  the  phrase  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt,  in  Christo  Jesu. 
Indeed  the  position  and  form  of  the  passage  fluctuate  in  the 
different  Latin  MSS.  in  a  remarkable  manner. 

Thus  the  Vulgate  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  a  witness 
against  the  passage,  rather  than  for  it.  Were  all  the  more 
recent  MSS.  of  it,  which  form  the  great  majority  of  existing 
ones,  uniform  in  their  testimony ;  did  they  exhibit  the  passage 
in  the  same  manner  and  a  prima  manu,  their  value  in  favour 
of  the  authenticity  would  be  gi*eater ;  but  as  long  as  they  are 
the  junior  copies,  and  present  the  strange  diversities  they  do, 
the  evidence  they  furnish  cannot  counterbalance  the  older 
copies  which  uniformly  want  the  passage.  The  circumstance 
that  the  more  ancient  of  those  who  have  it  give  the  hea- 
venly after  the  earthly  witnesses,  is  a  strong  presumption 
that  the  former  arose  by  a  mystical  interpretatioii  out  of  the 
latter. 

The  ancient  Greek  fathers  have  not  quoted  the  place,  even 
where  we  should  naturally  expect  them  to  do  so.  In  adducing 
arguments  for  the  Trinity,  or  the  divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,  we  can  scarcely  conceive  of  their  overlooking  it ;  espe- 
cially as  their  arguments  are  frequently  puerile  and  inapposite. 
Clement,  Ireuaeus,  Hippolytus,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 
Athanasius,  Didymus,  Basil,  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  and  Gre- 
gory of  Nyssa,  Epiphanius,  Caesarius,  Chrysostom,  Proclus, 


406  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

Alexander  of  Alexandria,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  the  Synopsis 
Sacrae  Scripturae,  Andreas  of  Caesarea,  Johannes  Damascenus, 
Elias  of  Crete,  German  of  Constantinople,  Q^cumenius,  Theo- 
phylact,  Euthymus  Zygabenus,  Nicetas,  besides  various  Greek 
catenae,  and  the  Greek  scholia  of  various  MSS.  ignore  it.  Nor 
is  it  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  any  council,  oecumenical  or 
provincial,  held  among  the  Greeks. 

Neither  is  the  passage  cited  by  the  Latin  fathers  when 
most  to  their  purpose,  and  where  it  might  have  been  looked 
for.  Thus  it  is  omitted  by  the  author  of  the  treatise  De 
haptizandis  haereticis  in  Cyprian's  works,  by  Novatian,  Hilary 
of  Poitiers,  Lucifer,  Ambrose,  Faustinas,  Leo  the  Great, 
Jerome,  Augustine,  Eucherius,  Facundus,  Junilius,  Hesychius, 
Bede,  Gregory,  Boethius,  Philastrius,  Paschasius,  Arnobius 
junior,  &c.  &c. 

The  advocates  of  the  authenticity  have  affirmed  notwith- 
standing, that  it  is  quoted  by  Cyprian,  Tertullian,  and  others, 
but  in  this  they  can  be  successfully  met  in  argument,  as  v/e 
shall  see  afterwards. 

The  best  critical  editions  have  left  out  the  words  as  spuri- 
ous. They  are  not  in  Erasmus's  first  two  editions.  They 
are  wanting  in  those  of  Aldus,  Gerbelius,  Cephalaeus,  Colin- 
aeus,  Mace,  Harwood,  Matthaei,  Griesbach,  Scholz,  Lach- 
mann,  Tischendorf,  and  others.  Bowyer  enclosed  them  in 
brackets,  and  Knapp  in  double  brackets,  indicating  their 
spuriousness. 

Luther  did  not  insert  them  in  the  first  edition  of  his 
German  version,  and  refused  to  admit  them  into  any  sub- 
sequent edition.  But  he  had  not  been  long  dead  when  the 
passage  was  foisted  in,  contrary  to  his  express  request  in  the 
preface  to  the  last  edition  printed  during  his  life.  Some 
editions  of  the  version  which  have  it  exhibit  it  in  smaller 
letters ;  others  enclos  5  it  in  brackets  ;  others  present  it  without 
any  distinction. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF    PASSAGES.  407 

Such  is  the  strong  evidence  that  lies  against  the  authen- 
ticity. 

2.  Let  us  now,  in  the  second  place,  adduce  the  evidence 
which  has  been  alleged  in  favour  of  the  passage. 

(1.)  The  following  MSS.  have  been  quoted  for  it: — 

Codex  173.  This  is  the  only  MS.  that  contains  the  words 
as  they  stand  in  the  received  text  but  a  secunda  manu^  the 
emendation  being  as  recent  as  the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth 
century,  and  taken  from  the  Vulgate,  as  Scholz  himself  says. 
This  codex  was  accurately  noted  by  Birch :  "  In  cod.  Neapo- 
litano  Regio  textus  hujus  commatis,  cum  additamentis  recenti 
charactere  margine  scriptis,  sequenti  modo  reperitur,"  &c.  The 
codex  itself  belongs  to  the  eleventh  century,  while  the  mar- 
ginal reading  belongs,  as  we  have  said,  to  the  sixteenth  or 
seventeenth.  There  is  no  reason,  therefore,  for  charging 
Scholz  with  inconsistency,  as  he  has  been  both  ignorantly 
and  unjustly  accused. 

The  passage  is  also  in  34,  i.e.  the  codex  Montfortii.,  Montfor- 
tianus,  or  Britannicus  (of  Erasmus). 

There  it  stands  thus  : — oV/  TpiTg  slffiv  o'l  /xapru^oijtiTSi;  sv  rw 
ou^avQj  'zarrip,  Xoyog,  Kal  Tvsv/jja  ayiov,  Kai  obroi  o'l  TpsTg,  sv  iJar  Kai 
rpug  slffiv  o'l  /Ma^rvpovvrsg  sv  rfj  yfj,  TcsCi/ia,  vdc/)^,  'Kai  aJiia'  si  rr\v  fj,ap- 
Tuplav  Tuv  dvdpc^'Truv  Xafil3a,vo/MSv,  yj  ^a^ri/g/a  rov  dsov  fisl^uv  sdrlv 
X.  T.  X.  Plere  it  will  be  seen  that  the  words  xa/  o'l  rpsTg  slg  rh 
sv  sJgiv  in  the  eighth  verse  are  wanting,  an  omission  peculiar 
to  the  modern  copies  of  the  A^ulgate.  Again,  the  omission  of 
the  article  in  naming  each  of  the  heavenly  witnesses ;  the  use 
of  sv  rfj  yfi  for  Irt  rJjs  yrig  •  the  position  of  ayiov  with  respect  to 
TvsD/xa,  being  after  whereas  it  ought  to  precede  the  substantive, 
are  remarkable.  For  these  reasons  Porson  inferred  that  the 
passage  was  a  bungling  translation  from  the  Latin — a  state- 
ment which  bishop  Burgess  tried  in  vain  to  disprove  ;  for  all 
that  he  said  in  opposition  was  turned  aside  by  Crito  Cantabri- 
giensis.     Another  indication  of  the  Latin  origin  is  o  -x^picrog  hnv 


408  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

aXri&iia,^  a  palpable  translation  of  Christus  est  Veritas  ;  contrary 
to  the  usual  Greek  reading. 

The  age  of  the  MS.  too  is  modern.  It  probably  belongs 
to  the  fifteenth  century  ;  not  certainly  to  the  eleventh,  as  Mar- 
tin of  Utrecht  thought ;  nor  to  the  thirteenth,  as  Dr.  A.  Clarke 
imagined.  All  the  best  critics,  IMichaelis,  Griesbach,  Porson, 
Marsh,  Scholz,  Tischendorf,  Turton  (Crito  Cantabrigiensis) 
assign  it  either  to  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century.  It  is  now 
in  the  library  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin ;  and  has  been  shewn 
by  Porson  to  be  probably  the  codex  Britannicus  of  Erasmus.* 

Another  MS.  containing  the  passage  is  the  codex  Ottohoni- 
anusj  marked  162  by  Scholz,  and  now  in  the  Vatican  298. 
It  is  a  Greek-Latin  copy  of  the  Acts,  the  Catholic  and  Pauline 
epistles,  and  is  ascribed  by  Scholz  to  the  fifteenth  century, 
which  is  rather  too  early.  Here  the  passage  is  in  a  form  diffe- 
rent from  the  usual  one.  It  wants  the  article  before  the  words 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  instead  of  h  rip  ovpavuj  it 
has  ocTb  Tou  ov^avou  /  and  for  h  rfj  y?;,  ocrb  ryjg  yrig.  Scholz 
states  that  there  are  innumerable  transpositions  of  words 
in  the  MS.,  but  does  not  say  that  they  are  from  the  Latin. 
He  affirms  that  this  passage  is  translated  from  the  Vulgate,  of 
which  indeed  there  can  be  little  doubt.  Hence  its  evidence  is 
of  no  value. 

The  passage  is  also  in  the  codex  Ravianus  at  Berlin.  But 
this  is  universally  admitted  to  be  a  forgery  made  from  the  Greek 
text  of  the  Complutensian  and  the  third  edition  of  Stephens. 

Another  MS.,  the  codex  Guelfpherbytanus  C.  has  it,  but  in 
the  margin  and  from  a  more  recent  hand  than  the  text. 
Doubtless  the  marginal  passage  was  taken  from  a  printed  edi- 
tion, not  a  MS.  It  is  also  found  in  another  Wolfenbiittel  MS. 
of  the  seventeenth  century ;  but  this  testimony  is  of  no  value, 
for  Knittel  affirms  that  the  codex  contains  the  various  read- 
ings of  the  Vulgate  and  Peshito  versions,  with  those  of  the 
*  Letters  to  Mr.  Archdeacon  Travis,  1790,  8vo. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  409 

Latin  translations  made  by  Erasmus,  Vatablus,  Castalio,  and 
Beza. 

(2.)  It  is  said  to  have  been  in  the  old  Latin  version  which 
formed  the  basis  of  the  Vulgate.  But  no  3IS.  of  that  version 
can  be  adduced  in  support  of  the  statement.  Yet  the  writings 
of  the  African  fathers  who  used  it  are  appealed  to.  But  we 
shall  see  by  and  bye,  that  none  of  the  African  fathers  in  reality 
cite  the  passage ;  and  therefore  the  argument  goes  for  nothing. 
It  is  simply  an  error  to  say  that  the  old  Latin  contained  the 
passage. 

Here  Wiseman's  argument  is  ingenious  but  unsound.  He 
is  right  in  thinking  that  there  were  two  ancient  recensions  of 
the  versio  vetus,  the  Italian  and  the  African ;  but  errs  in  saying 
that  the  clause  had  been  lost  at  an  early  period  both  from  the 
Greek  MSS.  and  the  Italian.  He  is  right  in  holding  that  the 
version  originated  in  Africa ;  but  wrong  in  holding  that  the 
African  recension,  as  far  as  ice  Jcnoio  it  now  in  IIS.  copies^  is 
superior  in  authority  to  the  Italian.  Hence  his  conclusion 
"  that  the  existence  of  an  African  recension  containing  the 
verse  gives  us  a  right  to  consider  as  quotations  passages  of 
African  writers  (such  as  those  of  Cyprian  and  Tertullian), 
which  in  the  works  of  Italian  authors  may  be  considered 
doubtful,"  is  fallacious,  as  is  proved  sufficiently  by  Augustine's 
writings,  w^hence  it  is  evident  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the 
passage  though  preferring  and  using  Italian  copies  of  the 
vetus. 

It  is  but  right,  however,  to  add  the  mode  in  which  the 
learned  writer  reasons.  He  gives  a  quotation  from  the  ancient 
MS.  preserved  at  the  monastery  of  Santa  Croce  in  Jerusalem, 
which  contains,  among  otlier  works,  one  terminating  with  the 
words  explicit  liher  testimoniorum,  and  having  in  an  earlier 
hand  as  a  title  Lihri  de  Speculo.  The  work  is  nearly  the  same 
with  that  published  by  Vignier  at  Paris  1655,  under  the  name 
of  the  Speculum  of  Augustine;   but  which  was  rejected  as 


410  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

spurious  hj  the  Benedictine  editors  of  Augustine.  The  Santa 
Croce  MS.  differs  from  Vignier's  publication  in  one  particular, 
viz.  its  Scripture  quotations  are  from  the  versio  vetus,  whereas 
in  Vignier  they  are  from  Jerome's  Vulgate.  Hence  Wiseman 
thinks  that  the  MS.  in  question  contains  the  genuine  speculum 
of  Augustine.  In  it  the  passage  before  us  stands  thus  :  "  Item 
Johannis  in  aepistula Item  illic  tres  sunt  qui  testi- 
monium dicunt  in  coelo,  Pater,  Verbum  et  Sp.  s.  et  hii  tres 
unum  sunt." — (Cap.  ii.  fol.  19,  de  distinctione  personarum.) 
In  this  manner  Augustine  is  brought  in  as  a  witness  for  the 
verse  along  with  TertuUian  and  Cyprian.  The  evidence  of 
African  writers  is  in  favour  of  the  verse  having  existed  in  the 
text  or  recension  of  that  church,  and  consequently  the  i\ISS. 
which  contained  the  verse  possessed  not  a  mere  individual 
authority  but  one  equal  to  that  of  the  whole  class  to  which  they 
belonged. 

The  objection  to  all  this  is,  that  the  acknowledged  writings 
of  Augustine  shew  no  acquaintance  on  his  part  with  the  verse 
before  us.  This  favours  the  suspicion  that  the  Speculum  con- 
tained in  the  Santa  Croce  MS.  is  not  the  work  of  Augustine. 
It  is  mere  assumption  in  Wiseman  to  reply  that  "  St.  Augus- 
tine in  his  ordinary  works  used  the  Italian  recension,  from 
which  the  verse  had  been  lost  at  an  early  period.  The  Specu- 
lum, as  we  learn  from  Possidius,  was  written  for  the  unlearned, 
and  hence  he  made  use  in  it  of  the  African  recension  which 
universally  contained  the  verse."  * 

It  is  said  to  be  in  the  Latin  version  called  the  Vulgate. 
But  we  have  already  seen  that  it  is  absent  from  the  oldest 
and  best  copies  of  it.  Hence  it  would  be  more  correct  to  say 
that  the  Vulgate  is  a  witness  against  the  passage. 

(3.)  It  is  quoted  by  many  Latin  fathers.  But  it  is  remark- 
able that  there  is  not  the  evidence  of  a  single  Italian  father  for 
the  verse  in  question.  Their  writings  shew  their  ignorance  of 
*  See  Catholic  Magazine,  vol.  iii.  p.  363. 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   PASSAGES.  411 

it.  Even  when  defending  or  proving  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  they  do  not  quote  it ;  though  they  cite  the  neighbour- 
ing context  relating  to  the  earthly  witnesses.  The  only 
evidence  of  this  kind  adduced  for  it  is  the  African  authority, 
which  we  proceed  to  consider.  We  need  scarcely  say  that  the 
authority  of  the  Latin  fathers  is  inferior  to  that  of  the  Greek 
in  determining  the  original  text,  because  they  commonly  used 
a  Latin  version  current  among  them ;  whereas  the  Greek  used 
the  Greek  itself.  And  even  if  they  do  quote  in  express 
terms  the  passage  before  us,  the  fact  would  prove  no  more  than 
that  it  was  in  their  MS.  or  MSS.  of  whatever  Latin  version 
they  used. 

Tertullian  has  been  brought  forward  as  a  witness  for  the 
verse.  Thus  in  his  treatise  against  Praxeas  (chapter  25),  he 
writes  :  "  Ca3terum  de  meo  sumet,  inquit,  sicut  ipse  Patris. 
Ila  connexus  Patris  in  Filio  et  Filii  in  Paracleto,  tres  efficit 
cohaerentes  alterum  ex  altero:  qui  tres  unum  sunt,  non  unus ; 
quomodo  dictum  est :  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus,  ad  sub- 
stantiae  unitatera,  non  ad  numeri  singularitatem."  From  the 
words  qui  tres  unum  sunt  being  now  in  the  Vulgate,  it  has  been 
thought  that  Tertullian  found  them  in  the  old  Latin.  It  is 
observable  however,  that  he  does  not  produce  them  as  a  quo- 
tation ;  and  from  what  follows  it  is  plain  that  he  did  not  know 
of  the  verse,  because,  in  proof  of  the  assertion  he  immediately 
adds,  quomodo  dictum  est  ego  et  pater  unum  sumus,  which  is  a 
quotation  from  John's  gospel  x.  30.  If  he  had  been  acquainted 
with  a  text  asserting  the  unity  of  the  three  persons,  he  would 
surely  have  appealed  to  it,  instead  of  to  one  that  relates  merely 
to  the  Father  and  Son.  Well  does  Bishop  Kaye  say,  "  In  my 
opinion  the  passage  in  Tertullian,  far  from  containing  an 
allusion  to  1  John  v.  7,  furnishes  most  decisive  proof  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  the  verse."  * 

*  The  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  second  and  third  centuries, 
illustrated  from  the  writings  of  Tertullian,  p.  550,  second  edition. 


412  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

Another  passage  in  Tertullian's  works  supposed  to  allude 
to  the  present  verse  is  in  his  treatise  de  Pudicitia  (chapter  xxi.) 
"  Et  ecclesia  proprie  et  principaliter  ipse  est  spiritus  in  quo  est 
trinitas  unius  divinitatis,  Pater,  et  Filius,  et  Spiritus  sanctus. 
Illam  ecclesiam  congregat  quam  Dominus  in  tribus  posuit,"  &c. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  tell  why  TertuUian  might  not  write 
thus  without  the  least  acquaintance  with  1  John  v.  7. 

Cyprian  has  also  been  adduced  as  a  witness  in  favour 
of  this  verse.  In  his  epistle  to  Jubaianus  he  writes :  "  Si 
baptizari  quis  apud  haereticum  potuit,  utique  et  remissam  pec- 
catorum  consequi  potuit, — si  peccatorum  remissam  consecutus 
est,  et  sanctificatus  est,  et  templum  Dei  factus  est;  quaero 
cujus  Dei?  Si  creatoris;  non  potuit,  qui  in  eum  non  credidit: 
si  Christi ;  non  hujus  potest  fieri  templum,  qui  negat  Deum 
Christum :  si  spiritus  sancti,  cum  tres  unum  si'nt,  quomodo 
Spiritus  placatus  esse  ei  potest,  qui  aut  Patris  aut  Filii  inimi- 
cus  est?"  Here  Cyprian  does  not  attempt  to  prove  the  unity 
of  the  three  persons.  He  alludes  to  no  passage  affirming 
the  unity.  He  simply  takes  it  for  granted,  ^\since  the  three 
are  one."  He  supposes  it  to  be  a  truth  already  known 
from  Scripture.  It  should  also  be  noted,  that  the  words  in 
question  have  been  suspected  as  supposititious.  Though  they 
appear  in  most  editions  of  Cyprian's  works,  they  are  not  in 
that  of  Erasmus.  It  would  be  worth  while  therefore  to 
examine  the  best  MSS.  of  Cyprian  to  ascertain  the  truth. 

Another  passage  in  the  same  father  occurs  in  his  treatise 
De  ecclesiae  unitate :  "  Dicit  Dominus ;  ego  et  Pater  unum 
sumus :  et  iterum  de  Patre  et  Filio  et  Spiritu  Sancto  scriptum 
est :  et  tres  (or  hi  tres)  unwn  sunt ;  et  quisquam  credit,  hanc 
unitatem  de  divina  firmitate  venientem,  sacramentis  coelestibus 
cohaerentem,  scindi  in  ecclesia  posse,  et  voluntatem  colliden- 
tium  divortio  separari." 

Here  the  words  are  expressly  introduced  by  the  formula  of 
citation  scriptum  est.     It  is  said  that  there  is  first  a  quotation 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  413 

from  John  x.  30,  /  and  my  Father  are  one  ;  and  next  another 
from  1  John  v.  7.  This  is  the  most  plausible  proof  of  the 
passage  being  quoted  by  an  early  Latin  writer.  Let  us  look 
closely  at  it. 

Cyprian's  treatise  on  the  unity  of  the  church  abounds  with 
references  to  Tertullian's  against  Praxeas ;  and  in  writing  this 
passage  it  is  not  improbable  that  he  had  Tertullian  in  his 
eye.  The  one  closely  followed  the  other.  Again,  if  Cyprian 
quotes  the  seventh  verse,  how  can  he  call  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  sacramenta  coelestia,  heavenly  mysteries.  It  is 
appropriate  to  call  the  spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood, 
heavenly  mysteries,  if  it  be  thought  that  they  mystically  repre- 
sented the  Trinity.  May  not  therefore  the  citation  here  be 
from  the  eighth  verse,  not  the  seventh  ?  This  is  at  least  possi- 
ble, for  the  final  clauses  of  the  two  verses  are  alike  in  the 
Latin  version,  though  different  in  Greek.  Hence  it  is  impos- 
sible to  judge  from  a  mere  quotation  of  this  clause  in  a  Latin 
writer,  whether  he  alludes  to  the  seventh  or  eighth  verse. 
He  may  refer  to  the  one  equally  with  the  other.  But  does 
not  Cyprian  affirm  that  the  words  et  tres  unum  sunt  are  written 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  How  then  can 
they  refer  to  the  spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood  in  the  eighth 
verse  ?  To  these  questions  we  reply,  that  the  Latin  fathers 
interpreted  S2nritus,  aqua,  et  sanguis  in  the  eighth  verse  mysti- 
cally, understanding  by  them  Pater,  Films,  et  Sjyiritus  Sanctus. 
Hence  we  suppose  that  Cyprian  may  have  quoted  the  eighth 
verse  in  its  mystical  sense ;  and  we  have  seen  already  the  pre- 
sumption arising  from  the  use  of  sacramenta  coelestia  that  he 
did  so  quote.  The  presumption  is  strengthened  by  the  fact, 
that  Facundus,  bishop  of  Hermiana  in  Africa,  about  the 
middle  of  the  sixth  century,  understood  Cyprian  to  cite  the 
eighth  verse.  Facundus  attempts  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  by  a  mystical  interpretation  of  the  eighth  verse, 
appealing  to  Cyprian,  who,  he  alleges,  gives  the  same  expla- 


414  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

nation.  Hence  we  should  believe  the  assertion  of  one  who 
lived  in  the  same  country  and  used  the  same  version  with 
Cyprian.  Thus  the  conclusion  follows,  that  the  words  of  this 
father,  on  which  the  advocates  of  1  John  v.  7  lay  so  great 
stress,  do  not  contain  a  quotation  from  the  seventh  verse,  but 
a  spiritual  application  of  the  eighth. 

But  the  testimony  of  Fulgentius  bishop  of  Ruspe  in  Africa, 
who  flourished  in  the  sixth  century,  is  brouglit  to  neutralise 
that  of  Facundus.  "  Let  us  now  make  a  very  probable  sup- 
position— namely,  that  Fulgentius  understood  Cyprian  to  quote 
the  seventh  verse  instead  of  the  eiglith.  Fulgentius  had  in 
the  margin,  or  possibly  in  the  text,  of  his  copy  of  St.  John's 
epistle,  this  disputed  verse ;  which  he  was  anxious  to  retain 
as  a  very  useful  weapon  against  the  Arians.  Knowing,  as  he 
must  have  known,  that  it  held  its  place  in  the  epistle  by  a 
very  dubious  title — and  perhaps  believing  that  it  had  some 
right  to  be  there — he  would  naturally  endeavour  to  strengthen 
its  claims  as  much  as  he  could.  And  this  purpose  he  carried 
into  effect  by  producing  something  which  looked  very  like 
Cyprian's  judgment  in  its  favour,"* 

In  like  manner  Phoebadius,  a  Gallican  bishop  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  is  supposed  to  have  referred  to 
the  seventh  verse.  In  his  treatise  against  the  Arians,  (chap. 
45)  he  says,  "  Sic  alius  a  Filio  Spiritus,  sicut  alius  a  Patre 
Filius.  Sic  tertia  in  Spiritu  ut  in  Filio  secunda  persona :  unus 
tamen  Deus  omnia,  quia  tres  imum  suntP  These  words  are 
taken  from  Tertullian's  treatise  against  Praxeas. 

Eucherius,  bishop  of  Lyons,  who  is  placed  about  the  year 
440,  is  also  thought  to  have  cited  the  seventh  verse. 

"  Item  in  epistola  sua  Johannes  ponit :  Tria  sunt  quae 
testimonium  perhibent,  aqua,  sanguis,  et  spiritus.  Quid  in 
hoc  indicatur?     Respon.  Simile  huic  loco  etiam  illud  MiHi 

■**  See  a  Vindication  of  the  literary  character  of  the  late  Professor 
Porson  by  Crito  Cantabrigiensis,  p.  274. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF    PASSAGES.  415 

videtur,  quod  ipse  in  Evangelic  suo  de  passione  Christi  loquitur 
dicens :  Unus  militum  lancea  latus  ejus  aperuit ;  et  continue 
exivit  sanguis  et  aqua;  ct  qui  vidit,  testimonium  perhibuit. 
In  eodera  ipse  de  Jesu  supra  dixerat ;  inclinato  capite  tradidit 
spiritum.  QuiDAM  ergo  ex  hoc  loco  ita  disputant :  aqua 
baptisraum,  sanguis  videtur  indicare  martyrium,  spiritus  vero 
ipse  est,  qui  per  martyrium  transit  ad  dominum.  Plukes 
tamen  hie  ipsam  interpretatione  mystica  intelligunt  Trinita- 
tem  eo  quod,"  &c.  &c.* 

But  these  words  fairly  interpreted  shew,  that  Eucherius 
applied  the  eighth  verse  mystically  to  the  Trinity,  contrary  to 
what  bishop  Burgess  argued.  This  has  been  plainly  proved 
by  Porson  and  Crito  Cantabrigiensis,  as  well  as  by  Griesbach. 

Vigilius  of  Tapsus  is  the  first  that  quotes  or  refers  to  the 
verse.  He  belonged  to  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  In  a 
work  against  Varimadus,  published  under  the  name  of  Idacius 
Clarus,  these  words  occur :  "  Johannes  evangelista  ad  Parthos  : 
Tres  sunt,  inquit,  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  terra,  aqua, 
sanguis  et  caro,  et  tres  in  nobis  sunt ;  et  tres  sunt  qui  testimo- 
nium perhibent  in  coelo,  Pater,  Verbum  et  Spiritus,  et  hi  tres 
unum  sunt."  It  has  been  supposed  however,  not  without 
reason,  that  the  work  has  been  interpolated  by  later  hands. 

The  next  witness  in  favour  of  the  verse  is  Fulgentius, 
bishop  of  Ruspe  about  507.  In  his  work  against  the  Arians 
he  writes  :  "  In  Patre  ergo  et  Filio  et  Spiritu  Sancto,  unitatem 
substantiae  accipimus ;  personas  confundere  non  audemus. 
Beatus  enim  Joannes  Apostolus  testatur  :  tres  sunt  qui  testimo- 
nium perhibent  in  coelo.  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus  ;  et 
tres  unum  sunt.  Quod  etiam  beatissimus  martyr  Cyprianus, 
in  epistola  de  Unitate  Ecclesiae  confitetur,  dicens,  "  Qui  pacem 
Christi  et  concordiam  rumpit,  adversus  Ciiristum  facit :  qui 
alibi  praeter  Ecclesiam  colligit,  Christi  Ecclesiam  spargit." 
Atque  ut  unam  ecclesiam  unius  Dei  esse  monstraret,  haec  con- 
*  Eufherii  opp.  p.  86.  Basil,  1530. 


416  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

festim  testimonia  de  Scripturis  inseruit :  "  Dicit  Dominus,  Ego 
et  Pater  unum  sumus :  ei,  iterunij  de  Patre,  Filio,  et  Spiritu 
Sancto  scriptum  est,  Et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.''''  Non  ergo  ex 
tribus  partibus  unum  colimus  Deum,"  &c. 

In  his  treatise  De  Trinitate  he  writes  :  "  En  habes  in  brevi 
alium  esse  Patrem,  alium  Filium,  alium  Spiritum  Sanctum  ; 
alium  et  alium  in  persona,  non  aliud  et  aliud  in  natura :  et 
idcirco,  Ego,  inquit,  et  Pater  unum  sumus.  Unum  ad  naturam 
referre  nos  docent,  sumus  ad  personas.  Similiter  et  illud : 
Tres  sunt,  inquit,  qui  testimonium  dicunt  in  coelo  :  Pater j  Verbum, 
et  Spiritus  :  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt. 

The  verse  is  also  quoted  in  a  fragment  of  a  treatise  attri- 
buted to  Fulgentius,  against  an  Arian  bishop  Pinta. 

There  is  also  a  fragment  of  a  treatise  against  Fabianus 
assigned  to  the  same  writer  in  which  the  passage  is  alluded  to : 
"  Beatus  vero  Joannes  Apostolus  evidenter  ait,  Et  tres  unum 
sunt :  quod  de  Patre,  et  Filio,  et  Spiritu  Sancto  dictum,  sicut 
superius,  cum  rationem  flagi tares,  ostendimus." 

From  these  places  it  would  appear,  that  though  Fulgentius 
was  acquainted  with  the  disputed  verse,  he  had  his  doubts  of 
its  authenticity.  The  passage  had  begun  to  be  written  in  his 
day,  and  he  was  desirous  to  retain  it  against  the  Arians. 

Another  argument  is  derived  from  the  confession  of  faith, 
supposed  to  be  drawn  up  by  Eugenius  at  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century,  and  presented  by  the  orthodox  bishops  of  Africa  to 
Hunerich  king  of  the  Vandals,  who  was  a  zealous  Arian.  In 
this  confession  is  the  following  passage :  "  Et  ut  adhuc  luce 
clarius  unius  divinitatis  esse  cum  Patre  et  Filio  Spiritum  S. 
doceamus,  Joannis  evangelistae  testimonio  comprobatur.  Ait 
namque  :  Tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  perhihent  in  coelo,  Pater, 
Verhum,  et  Sjnritus  Sanctus  ;  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.  Nuraquid 
ait,  &c.  Sed  tres,  inquit,  unum  sunt.''^  Here  the  passage  in 
question  is  clearly  quoted  by  these  African  bishops. 

The  whole   narrative   rests    on    the    authority    of   Victor 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   PASSAGES.  417 

Vitensis,  a  very  suspicious  writer.  Besides,  it  is  not  said  that 
the  363  bishops  who  went  to  Carthage  subscribed  it.  Victor 
says  nothing  about  subscription.  And  even  if  they  had  affixed 
their  names,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  majority  of  them  would 
examine  accurately  every  phrase,  and  compare  it  with  the 
copies  they  had  been  accustomed  to  use.  The  autJior  of  the 
confession  may  have  had  it  in  his  MS.,  but  that  all  who  sub- 
scribed the  declaration  believed  it  to  be  a  genuine  part  of 
Scripture,  is  too  much  to  affirm.  Should  we  allow  the  entire 
story  to  be  true,  the  Vandals  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been 
conversant  with  Scripture  MSS.  or  the  writings  of  the  early 
fathers.  They  did  not  strive  to  overcome  their  opponents  by 
argument,  but  by  force  of  arms.  Hence  the  orthodox  party 
might  produce  the  verse  as  Scripture,  w^ith  little  fear  of 
detection. 

The  author  of  the  confession  is  not  known.  It  has  been 
ascribed  to  Victor,  Eugenius,  Vigilius.  Porson  thinks  that  it 
was  written  by  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  and  published  under  the 
name  of  Eugenius.* 

Cassiodoras,  a  Roman  senator  of  the  sixth  century,  has  also 
been  quoted  in  favour  of  the  verse.  The  words  relating  to  the 
point  are  these : — "  Cui  rei  testificantur  in  terra  tria  mysteria ; 
aqua,  sanguis,  et  spiritus :  quae  in  passione  Domini  leguntur 
impleta :  in  coelo  autem  Pater,  et  Filius,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus ; 
et  hi  tres  unus  est  Deus."  But  an  attentive  examination  of 
the  passage  with  its  surrounding  context  will  shew,  that  the 
words  quoted  contain  a  mystical  application  of  the  eighth  verse 
to  the  Trinity ;  and  that  they  are  not  a  quotation  of  the 
seventh.  We  believe  that  tlie  three  heavenly  witnesses  did 
not  exist  in  the  copy  of  Cassiodorus,  as  Porson  and  Crito 
Cantab,  have  shewn. 

The  passage  is  quoted  by  Ambrosius  Anspertus  in  the 
eighth  century,  and  by  Etherius  of  Axum  in  Spain  at  the  close 
*  Letters  to  Travis,  p.  338. 

VOL.  IT.  2  E 


418  BIBLICAL    CIUTICISM. 

of  the  same  period.  Indeed  from  the  eighth  century,  it  was 
commonly  cited  by  ecclesiastical  writers,  because  it  was  then 
in  the  Latin  Bible. 

At  one  time,  Jerome  was  produced  as  a  witness  in  favour 
of  the  authenticity,  because  in  several  editions  of  the  Vulgate  a 
prologue  accompanies  the  Catholic  epistles  purporting  to  pro- 
ceed from  Jerome.  But  most  critics  have  seen  that  the 
prologue  is  a  forgery,  written  long  after  the  age  of  Jerome. 
The  writer  boasts  of  having  arranged  the  epistles  in  their 
proper  order,  refers  particularly  to  the  first  epistle  of  John, 
and  condemns  the  unfaithful  translators  who,  while  inserting 
the  testimony  of  the  water,  the  blood,  and  the  spirit,  had 
omitted  that  of  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Even  Martianay,  who  superintended  the  Benedictine  edition  of 
Jerome's  works,  condemned  the  prologue  as  spurious ;  though 
he  inserted  it  in  the  edition.  Thus  the  earliest  writer  in  whom 
the  passage  appears  is  Vigilius,  at  the  close  of  the  fifth  century ; 
and  every  critic  knows  the  character  of  the  works  attributed 
to  him,  and  the  uncertainty  of  Chifflet's  reasons  for  claiming 
them.* 

At  what  time  the  mystical  application  of  the  eighth 
verse  to  the  Trinity  first  appeared,  it  is  not  easy  to  discover. 
Some  think  that  Augustine  was  the  first  Avho  ventured  on  that 
use  of  it.  So  Bishop  Marsh  has  conjectured,  when  he  says 
that  "  Augustine  was  induced  in  his  controversy  with  Maximin 
to  compose  a  gloss  on  the  eighth  verse."  f  The  allegorical 
explanation  was  in  all  probability  p7n(yr  to  that  father ;  but  he 
gave  it  his  sanction,  by  which  means  its  reception  was  greatly 
promoted.  It  is  clear,  that  in  the  Latin  church  it  was  tolerably 
well  known  during  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries.  "  The  gloss," 
says  Marsh,  "  having  once  obtained  credit  in  the  Latin  church, 
the  possessors  of  Latin  MSS.  began  to  note  it  in  the  margin, 

*  Vigilii  Tapsensis  Vindiciae,  pp.  64-68. 
+  Lectures  on  Divinity,  part  vi.  p.  1 8,  et  seq. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  419 

by  the  side  of  the  eighth  verse.  Hence  the  oldest  of  those 
Latin  MSS.  which  have  the  passage  in  the  margin  have  it  in 
a  different  hand  from  that  of  the  text.  In  later  MSS.  we  find 
margin  and  text  in  the  same  hand,  for  transcribers  did  not 
venture  immediately  to  move  it  into  the  body  of  the  text, 
though  in  some  MSS.  it  is  interlined,  but  interlined  by  a 
later  hand.  After  the  eighth  century  the  insertion  became 
general."* 

The  mystical  application  of  the  eighth  verse  is  a  proof  of 
the  non-existence  of  the  seventh.  For  if  the  seventh  were 
known,  to  what  purpose  was  the  allegorical  explanation  of  the 
eighth  ?  On  that  supposition,  no  rational  account  of  its  origin 
can  be  given.  But  the  mystical  application  of  the  eighth 
clearly  shews  that  it  was  itself  the  origin  of  the  seventh. 
Hence  what  is  now  the  seventh  verse,  or  in  other  words  the 
gloss  embodying  the  allegorical  explanation,  followed,  at  its 
first  insertion,  the  eighth  verse  5  just  as  a  gloss  naturally  fol- 
lows the  text  it  is  made  upon. 

But  did  not  the  disputed  verse  get  into  the  first  printed 
editions  from  Greek  MSS.  ?  On  the  publication  of  Erasmus's 
edition  he  was  attacked  by  Lee,  afterwards  archbishop  of  York, 
and  by  Stunica,  one  of  the  Complutensian  editors,  for  omitting 
it.  He  replied  to  both  in  two  Apologies  and  professed  his 
willingness  in  the  former,  which  was  an  answer  to  Lee,  to 
insert  the  verse  in  his  next  edition,  should  any  Greek  MS.  be 
found  containing  it.  And  as  such  a  MS.  was  found  in  England, 
he  fulfilled  his  promise  in  inserting  the  clause  in  his  third  edi- 
tion published  in  1522,  though  he  had  strong  suspicions  about 
the  codex  Bntanmcus  as  he  calls  it. 

This  MS.  is  commonly  believed  to  be  identical  with  the 

Dublin  or  codex  Montfortianus^  notwithstanding  the  attempts 

that  have  been  made  to  shew  their  diversity.     For  the  passage 

appears  thus  in  Erasmus's  third  edition :  y.(xt  rh  irtiZiJ.a  Un  rb 

*  Lectures  on  Divinity,  part  vi.  p.  18,  et  seq. 


420  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

fMa^Tu^ouv,  on  rh  'Trvsufj^a  sariv  yj  dXridsla'  on  rpsTg  sJaiv  oi  /Maprvpouvrtg 
iv  rfi  o'j^avtp,  Tar?9^,  Xoyog,  xa/  itv'txin.ci  oiyiov,  xai  ouroi  o't  'rpsTg  sv  slar 
Ttal  T^sTg  sieiv  o'l  /^a^rvpovvrsg  sv  rfj  yp,  Ti'sCi/x.a,  xai  vdu^,  xai  aJ/Ma,  xai 
01  rpsTg  sig  rh  h  sisiv.  Thus  the  third  edition  of  Erasmus  dif- 
fers from  the  cod.  Britannicus  in  having  the  final  clause  xai 
o'l  TpiTg  sig  rh  'iv  ileiv ;  and  in  the  insertion  of  xa)  before  Mu^. 
Erasmus's  description  of  the  text  of  the  cod.  Britannictts  also 
differs  from  the  Dublin  M8.  for  he  says : — "  Veruntaraen,  ne 
quid  dissimulem,  repertus  est  apud  Anglos  Graecus  codex 
unus,  in  quo  habetur  quod  in  Vulgatis  deest;  scriptum  est 
enim  in  hunc  modum  :" — on  r^iig  slaiv  o'l  i^aprv^oxjvng  iv  rw  oh^avS), 
varri^,  Xoyog  xai  Tviv/xa,  xai  ouroi  o'l  rpiTg  sv  ilffiv  xai  r^sTg  slaiv 
/xaprvoovvreg  sv  rrj  yrj,  'TTvsufia,  "jh^p  xai  aiiLa-  si  rr\v  iMa.^r\j^iav,  x.  r.  X.* 
On  another  occasion  he  remarks,  that  "  the  British  codex  had 
olroi  o'l  r^£/s,  while  the  Spanish  edition  (Complutensian  Polj- 
glott)  had  only  xai  o'l  r^sTg,  which  was  also  the  case  in  the 
spirit,  water,  and  blood ;  that  the  British  had  sV  iisi,  the 
Spanish  eJg  rh  sv  iigiv ;  and  finally,  that  the  British  added  to 
the  earthly  witnesses  xai  oi  r^sTg  sig  rh  sv  £/V/,  which  was  not 
here  added  in  the  Spanish  edition," 

But  still,  it  is  most  probable  that  the  cod.  Britannicus  and 
the  Dublin  MS.  are  the  same ;  and  that  Erasmus,  who  never 
saw  the  MS.  he  gives  an  account  of,  made  some  mistakes  in 
transcribing  its  text  from  the  papers  before  him,  as  Porson 
long  ago  shewed. 

There  is  less  reason  for  believing  that  the  Complutensian 
editors  inserted  the  passage  on  the  authority  of  Greek  MSS. 
They  read  thus  :  on  r^sTg  sisiv  oi  fiapru^ovvrsg  sv  rui  ovgavOJ,  o 
Tarri^,  xai  6  Xoyog  xai  rh  dyiov  Ti/sD/xa,  xai  oi  r^sTg  sig  rh  sv  slat,  xai 
rpiTg  slsiv  oi  /xaprv^ovvrsg,  x.  r.  X.  The  Latin  version  in  the 
same  Polyglott  is,  Quoniam  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant 
in  celoj  pater ^  verhum  ei  spiritus  sanctus,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt, 
et  tres  sunt  qui,  &c.  When  Stunica  was  challenged  by 
*  Apologia  ad  Stunicam. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF    PASSAGES.  421 

Erasmus  to  produce  his  Greek  evidence  for  the  place,  he 
appealed  to  no  Greek  MSS.  He  simply  replied:  Scien- 
dum est  Graecorum  codices  esse  corrupios  ;  nostras  veto  i-psam 
veritatem  continere.  This  is  a  proof  that  the  Greek  MSS. 
used  by  the  editors  did  not  contain  the  disputed  verse, 
especially  when  it  is  remembered  that  Stunica  quotes  the 
codex  Rhodtensis  in  opposition  to  Erasmus  in  this  very  epistle 
of  John,  viz.  on  iii.  16  and  v.  20.  The  editors  have  also 
affixed  a  marginal  note  to  the  Greek  text — a  circumstance  very 
unusual  with  them,  as  only  three  instances  of  it  occur  in  the 
whole  edition.  In  this  note,  the  object  of  which  was  to  secure 
themselves  from  blame  for  printing  the  verse,  we  should  ex- 
pect their  best  defence  of  it.  Yet  they  do  not  mention  any 
Greek  MS.  that  contains  it,  nor  any  various  readings  in 
Greek  MSS.  They  simply  appeal  to  Thomas  Aquinas. 
When  we  add  to  this,  the  agreement  of  their  Greek  of  the 
passage  with  the  verse  as  it  stands  in  their  text  of  the  Vul- 
gate, it  is  certain  that  they  had  no  Greek  MSS.  containing  it. 
We  believe  therefore,  that  the  editors  took  the  passage  not 
from  Greek  MSS.  but  from  the  modern  copies  of  the  Vulgate, 
Pseudo-Jerome,  and  Thomas  Aquinas. 

It  was  also  asserted  and  maintained,  that  the  text  existed 
in  some  of  the  Greek  MSS.  used  by  Stephens,  whence  he 
inserted  it  in  his  text.  In  his  third  edition  he  cites  seven 
Greek  MSS.  of  the  Catholic  epistles  of  which  three  belonged 
to  the  Royal  Library  in  Paris.  Now  it  is  his  manner,  when 
any  words  are  omitted  in  his  MSS.,  to  place  an  obelus  in  his 
text  before  the  first  word,  and  a  semicircle  after  the  last,  shew- 
ing the  extent  of  the  omission.  But  in  this  edition  the  semi- 
circle comes  after  the  words  h  tw  oh^avw  in  the  seventh  verse. 
Hence  it  has  been  inferred,  that  these  words  only^  and  not  the 
entire  passage,  were  wanting  in  his  seven  MSS.  But  it  has 
been  shewn  by  Simon,  Marsh,  and  Porson  that  the  semicircle 
was  put  by  mistake  in  the  wrong  place.     It  ought  to  be  after 


422  BIBLICAL    CKITICISM. 

h  Tjj  yf,  in  the  eighth  verse.  None  of  tlie  MSS.  now  in  the 
Parisian  Royal  Library  has  the  passage ;  and  one  of  Stephens's 
MSS.  at  present  in  the  library  of  Cambridge  University  is  also 
without  it.  We  say  one  of  Stephens's  MSS.  now  in  Cambridge 
on  the  authority  of  Marsh,  who  has  made  it  all  but  certain,  in 
his  letters  to  Travis,  that  this  Cambridge  MS.  (codex  Bezae) 
and  /S  of  Stephens  are  identical. 

None  of  the  other  early  editions  need  be  canvassed  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  they  derived  the  disputed 
passage  from  Greek  MSS.  It  passed  into  Stephens's  editions 
from  the  three  last  of  Erasmus ;  Beza  followed  Stephens  in 
inserting  it ;  and  thence  it  came  into  the  Elzevir  editions  of 
1624  and  1633,  where  it  established  itself  as  an  integral  part 
of  the  received  text.  It  was  also  thought  at  one  time,  that 
Valla's  variae  lectiones  afforded  some  evidence  of  a  Greek  MS. 
or  MSS.  in  his  possession  which  had  the  seventh  verse.  On 
1  John,  chap.  v.  there  are  only  three  notes,  and  the  first  of  the 
three  is  on  the  words,  Et  Tii  tres  unum  sunt.  Here  he  observes, 
"  Or.  Et  hi  tres  in  unum  sunt,  eJg  -rh  h  ileu''  Here  a  difference 
between  the  readings  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  is  indicated.  Now 
as  the  words  Et  Id  tres  unum  sunt  are  in  the  Vulgate  at  the  end 
both  of  verses  7  and  8,  it  was  thought  that  Valla's  note  referred 
to  the  former,  not  the  latter.  If  so,  he  had  at  least  one  Greek 
MS.  with  the  seventh  verse.  But  w^e  believe  that  it  has  been 
made  all  but  certain  by  various  writers,  especially  by  Porson,* 
hat  Valla's  Greek  MSS.  wanted  the  seventh  verse ;  and  that 
no  argument  can  be  derived  from  his  silence  in  favour  of  the 
pinion  that  they  had  it.  The  note  in  question  refers  to  the 
eighth  verse,  not  to  the  seventh. 

Of  the  seventh  verse  in   Oreek,  we  perceive  the  earliest 

germs  in   Greek  scholia  appended  to  the  margin  of  MSS. 

Thus  in  62  a  scholiast  remarks  in  the  margin  at  the  word 

■xnvn,a  in  the  eighth  verse;    rh  ayiov  -/.ai  b  iraTri^  -/.ai  alrog   iaurou  : 

*  Letters  to  Travis,  p.  24,  et  secj. 


L'lllTICAL    EXAMINATION    OF    PASSAGES.  423 

on  'iv  iUi  he  says,  eJg  ^sog,  ,w,/a  ^soVjjs ;  and  on  verse  9  he  adds 
to  iMOL^Tvpia  T0\j  hov  :  tov  'rrar^hg  %ai  rov  ayim  iivibihctTog.  In  hke 
manner,  in  a  Parisian  codex,  2247,  it  is  remarked  on  verse  8 : 
ToursGri  rh  -irviZfMa  rb  dyiov  -/.a)  6  variiP  xai  avrhg  savroij  /  and  on 
iv  ileiv;  roursari  fLia  dsorrig,  slg  kog.  Another  scholion  produced  by 
Matthaei  has :  o't  r^sTg  dh  sJ-ttsv  a^Sivr/iug,  on  ovpbiSoXa  raura  rrig 
rpiddog* 

The  entire  verse  appeared  for  the  first  time  in  Greek  in  a 
Greek  version  of  the  Latin  Acts  of  the  Lateran  council  held 
in  1215.  There  it  had  this  form :  on  r^ug  iktv  o'l  iMa^ru^ovvTig  h 
ovpai/uj,  6  TaryjP,  Xoyog,  xoci  'XViv/J^a  clyior  xa/  rouroi  o't  r^sTg  sv  slaiv. 

In  the  fourteenth  century  Manuel  Calecas,  a  monk  of  the 
Dominican  order,  quotes  it  in  this  form  :  r^iTg  ueiv  o'l  /ut^a^rv^ovvTsg, 
6  'Trarrjp,  6  /^oyog,  -/.cci  to  'Trvsv/J^a  rb  ay/oe,  omittmg  sv  tuj  ov^avw  and 
ouToi  o'l  T^iTg  sv  sidiv. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  fifteenth  century,  Joseph 
Bryennius,  a  Greek  monk,  quotes  part  of  the  sixth  with  the 
seventh  and  eighth  verses  thus:  xa/  to  'irvsv/Ma  ssn  /Ma^Tv^ovv,  on  6 
XpidTog  sStiv  7]  akriQiia'  on  T^sTg  s/V/v  oi  fia^Tu^ouvTsg  sv  tQ  ov^avul,  6 
TaTTj^,  6  Xoyog^  xa)  to  '7rvsv//,a  to  dyiov,  xal  oxjTot  o'l  T^sTg  h  siai.  xa! 
T^sTg  o'l  fjja^Tv^ovvTsg  h  Tp  yfi,  to  'Trvsv/j.a,  to  'vdco^  xai  Tb  ai^a. 

But  the  whole  treatise  in  which  this  passage  occurs  was 
not  in  two  Moscow  MSS.  of  Bryennius's  works,  examined  by 
Matthaei. 

The  passage  was  inserted  in  the  Sixtine  Vulgate  published 
1590,  and  the  Clementine  editions  1592,  &c.  having  previously 
been  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglott,  the  third  edition  of 
Erasmus  1522,  in  the  various  editions  of  Stephens  1546-1569, 
and  in  the  editions  of  Beza  1565-1576,  whence  it  passed  into 
the  Elzevir  ones  1624,  1633. 

After  this  survey  of  the  external  evidence  against  and  for 
tlie  passage,  we  believe  no  one  will  hesitate  to  conclude  that 
it  is  spurious.  The  testimony  against  it  is  strong  and  over- 
*  See  Griesbach's  Diatribe  in  locum  1  Joann.  v.  7,  p.  638. 


424  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

whelming.  Let  us  now  consider  the  internal  evidence  for  and 
against  it. 

(1.)  It  is  said  that  the  connexion  requires  the  seventh  verse. 
The  sense  is  not  complete  without  it.  But  those  who  thus 
argue,  assume  tliat  the  words  h  rfj  yfi  in  the  eighth  verse 
are  genuine ;  whereas  they  are  equally  spurious  with  sv  rSj 
ov^avS/,  which  are  thought  necessary  to  the  antithesis.  Al- 
though the  words  in  terra  in  the  eighth  verse  are  wanting  in 
some  Latin  MSS.  which  have  not  the  heavenly  witnesses,  as 
we  are  informed  by  Stephens,  Hentenius,  Lucas  Brugensis, 
and  others ;  yet  they  are  not  found  in  the  oldest  copies.  It  is 
likely  that  they  were  inserted  to  coiTCspoud  to  the  interpolated 
in  coelo  of  the  preceding  context. 

(2.)  The  grammatical  structure  of  the  original  Greek  requires 
the  insertion  of  the  seventh  verse,  else  the  latter  part  of  the 
eighth  must  also  be  rejected.  If  the  seventh  verse  do  not 
precede,  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  use  of  the  masculine 
gender  in  the  eighth.  We  should  expect  r^ia  ilciv  r«  i^ct^ru^- 
ovvra,  because  each  of  the  witnesses  to  which  the  clause  refers 
is  in  the  neuter  gender.  But  if  the  seventh  verse  be  authentic, 
the  writer  might  naturally  cany  on  the  same  expression  r^sTg 
iisiv  01  fji^aprupouvTsg,  since  the  spirit,  water,  and  blood  attest  the 
same  thing  with  the  heavenly  witnesses. 

To  this  it  may  be  replied,  that  the  spirit,  water,  and  blood 
are  personified  in  the  passage ;  and  therefore  the  masculine 
gender  is  employed.  They  are  introduced  as  speaking  wit- 
nesses for  the  fact  that  Jesus  has  come  and  traly  suffered, 
according  to  prophecy. 

(3.)  Some  think,  that  from  the  existence  of  the  article  rh 
before  'iv  ileiv  in  the  last  clause  of  the  eighth  verse,  it  must 
refer  to  'iv  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  consequently  that  both 
verses  are  so  inseparably  connected  that  they  must  be  retained 
or  rejected  together.  This  ingenious  supposition  is  mentioned 
by  Wolfius  in  his  Curae  Pliilologicae ;  and  has  been  ably  dis- 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  425 

cussed  by  Middletou  in  his  work  on  the  Greek  article.  But  it 
derives  its  weight  solely  from  the  supposition  that  the  three 
earthly  witnesses  concur  in  testifying  the  one  thing  testified  by 
the  heavenly  witnesses.  If  h  umi  in  the  seventh  verse 
express  the  consubstantiality  of  the  divine  persons,  the  rh  h  of  the 
eighth  verse  can  have  no  allusion  to  the  word  h  in  the  seventh 
verse.  It  is  only  in  case  the  b  ihai  in  the  seventh  denotes 
consent  or  unanimity  that  this  argument  is  valid.  Now  inter- 
preters are  not  agreed  that  the  heavenly  and  eartlily  witnesses 
attest  the  same  thing.  Bishop  Burgess,  the  most  strenuous 
defender  of  the  disputed  verse  in  modern  times,  thinks  that 
the  heavenly  witnesses  of  the  seventh  verse  attest  the  divine 
nature  of  Jesus ;  the  earthly  witnesses  of  the  eighth  verse,  his 
human  nature. 

It  is  observed  by  Turton,  that  ro  h  may  be  equivalent  to 
rh  ai/ro,  juSt  aS  in  Philip,  ii.  2,  supposing  rh  'iv  ip^ovovvrsg  in  that 
passage  to  be  the  genuine  reading,  in  which  case  it  is  not 
necessary  to  refer  the  article  to  anything  preceding.* 

(4.)  It  is  said  that  the  diction  is  characteristic  of  John  the 
apostle.  The  term  Word  is  applied  to  Christ  by  no  other 
evangelist  or  apostle ;  and  in  the  fourth  gospel  he  often  speaks 
of  the  vjitness  of  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  the  force  of  this  argument.  No  expres- 
sions identical  with  those  in  1  John  v.  7  occur  in  John's  au- 
thentic writings  ;  and  besides,  it  is  easy  to  manvfacture  out  of 
what  he  has  loritten  similar  sentiments  and  phraseology. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  connexion  is  clearer  and  the  sense 
easier  of  apprehension  without  the  disputed  words.  The 
opponents  of  their  authenticity  argue  that  internal  evidence  is 
against  the  passage. 

(1.)  John  never  uses  6  varriP  and  6  Xoyog  as  correlates  ;  but 
always  6  Tarri^  and   6  u'/og.      In  the  same  way  all  the  New 

*  Vindication  of  the  literary  character  of  Professor  Porson,  &c. 
p.  352. 


426  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM, 

Testament  writers  employ  the  terms.  Hence  the  phraseology 
is  foreign  to  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament. 

(2.)  We  should  expect  that  the  heavenly  witnesses  ought 
to  be  placed  after  the  earthly  ones ;  since  the  preceding  con- 
text had  referred  to  the  earthly.  The  oldest  copies  of  the 
Vulgate  have  them  indeed  in  that  order,  but  tlien 

(3.)  There  is  no  proper  relation  between  the  water,  the 
blood,  and  the  spirit,  and  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the 
Spirit.  Nor  can  any  suitable  contrast  of  the  three  be  pointed 
out. 

(4.)  "  Without  the  interpolation,  certainly,  the  mention  of 
the  water,  blood,  and  spirit  in  the  sixth  verse  is,  with  great 
propriety,  followed  by  the  repetition  of  the  same  terms  in  the 
genuine  text;  which  repetition  is  rendered  emphatic  by  the 
exaltation  of  the  spirit,  water,  and  blood  into  three  witnesses."  * 

(5.)  '■^  The  whole  design  of  the  apostle  being  here  to  prove 
to  men  by  witness,  the  truth  of  Christ's  coming,  I  would  ask  how 
the  testimony  of  the  '  three  in  heaven '  makes  to  this  purpose  ? 
If  their  testimony  be  not  given  to  men,  how  does  it  prove 
to  them  the  truth  of  Christ's  coming  ?  If  it  be,  how  is  the 
testimony  in  heaven  distinguished  from  that  on  earth?  It  is 
the  same  spirit  which  witnesses  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  If 
in  both  cases  it  witnesses  to  us  men,  wherein  lies  the  difference 
between  its  witnessing  in  heaven  and  its  witnessing  in  earth  ? 
If  in  the  first  case  it  does  not  witness  to  men,  to  whom  doth  it 
witness  ?  And  to  what  purpose  ?  And  how  does  its  witness- 
ing make  to  the  design  of  St,  John's  discourse  ?  Let  them 
make  good  sense  of  it  who  are  able.  For  my  part,  I  can  make 
none."  f 

We  believe  that  internal  evidence  is  against  the  passage  as 

well  as  the  external ;  and  therefore  reject  the  whole  as  certainly 

spurious. 

*   rorson,  Letters,  &c.  p.  -Si)?. 
t  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  0pp.  voL  v.  pp.  528-529,  ed.  Horsley. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   TASSAOKS.  427 

Mattheio  vi.  13. 
"Or/  (SOU   iffTiv  ri   fSaSiKsia  xai  i)   bbva/J^n;  x.ai  r]  do^a  s/'s  rodg  aiuvac' 

"  For  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  power,  and  the  gloiy 
for  ever.     Amen." 

The  authenticity  of  these  words  has  been  much  contested. 
Many  have  been  so  long  accustomed  to  regard  them  as  a  part 
of  the  Lord's  prayer,  that  they  think  it  impious  to  disturb 
them,  or  to  call  in  question  their  divine  authority ;  while  others 
do  not  scruple  to  set  them  aside  on  the  ground  of  substantial 
evidence. 

We  shall  adduce  the  evidence  on  both  sides. 

In  favour  of  the  clause  we  have  the  following  authorities : — 

1.  It  is  found  in  all  the  Greek  MSS.  yet  examined  except 
eight.  It  is  contained  in  the  Peshito,  Philoxenian,  and  Jeru- 
salem-Syriac  versions;  in  the  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  Georgian, 
Gothic,  Slavonic.  It  is  in  a  very  few  MSS.  of  the  Memphitic 
in  the  margin,  in  the  Erpenian  Arabic,  and  the  Persian  of  the 
London  Polyglott.  It  is  also  in  some  MSS.  of  the  Latin 
version.  The  apostolic  constitutions  have  it  once  in  the  usual 
form,  once  in  another  manner.  Thus  in  (vii.  24)  they  have : 
on  sou  sGTiv  rj  /SaC/Xf/a  sig  roue  aluvac'  dfx,rjv,  which  may  be  said  tO 
contain  the  germ  of  its  present  form.  But  in  iii.  18  they  ex- 
hibit it  fully. 

2.  It  is  found  in  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Chrysostom  some- 
times, Theophylact,  Euthymius,  German  of  Constantinople 
but  differently  from  the  usual  way.  Pseudo-Ambrose  gives  a 
doxology  much  more  copious  than  the  present ;  but  in  other 
places  he  repeats  the  Lord's  prayer  without  it,  and  omits  all 
mention  of  it  in  his  explanations. 

Such  is  the  amount  of  external  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
words.  The  internal  may  be  summed  up  in  the  words  of 
Calvin  :     "  The  clause  is  so  exactly  suitable,  for  it  was  added 


428  ,     BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

not  only  for  tlie  purpose  of  kindling  our  hearts  to  seek  the 
glory  of  God  and  of  reminding  us  of  the  proper  object  of  our 
prayers,  but  likewise  to  teach  us  that  our  prayers  which  are 
here  dictated  to  us,  are  built  on  no  other  foundation  than  God 
alone,  lest  we  should  lean  on  our  own  merits."* 

The  autliorities  against  the  doxology's  authenticity  are 
these : — 

1.  It  is  omitted  in  B.  D.  Z.  i.  17  (but  this  has  a/A^i/) 
118,  130,  209,  and  those  very  ancient  MSS.  out  of  which 
Luke  (xi.  2-4)  was  interpolated.  There  is  also  a  scholium  in 
several  MSS.  examined  by  Wetstein,  Birch,  and  Matthaei  to  this 
effect  :  rh  d's-  on  aov  x.  r.  X.  h  riGiv  oh  xsTTai  fJ'SXi'  "^^^  aiJjrjv.  The 
scholiast  of  cod.  36  on  Luke  observes,  that  Luke  finishes  the 
prayer  with  the  words,  lead  us  not  into  te^nptation ;  but  that 
Matthew  added,  hut  deliver  us  from  evil. 

2.  It  is  omitted  in  the  Memphitic,  the  Arabic  of  the  Roman 
edition  (1591)  and  Polyglott,  the  Persian  of  Wheloc,  the  old 
Latin  (except  cod.  Brixianus,  San  Germanensis  1.  Bobbiensis 
has  quoniam  est  tibi  virtus  in  saecula  saeculorum),  the  Vulgate 
(which  has  however  Amen.,  though  that  too  is  absent  from 
some  MSS.) 

3.  The  Greek  fathers,  even  when  they  explain  at  length 
the  Lord's  prayer  and  its  several  parts,  omit  the  doxology ;  as 
Origen,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Maximus,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssene. 
The  last  writer  however  concludes  his  exposition  thus  :  XH'''"' 

ayicf)  'ffvsvfjbari,  vvv  xai  aBi,  xai  ilg  roug  aiuvag  ruiv  atdjvuv,  a/^^i/  /f  ''  by 
the  grace  of  Christ,  for  his  is  the  power  and  the  glory  with 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  now  and  always  and  for  ever 

*  "  Neque  enim  ideo  solum  addita  est,  ut  corda  nostra  ad  expetendam 
Dei  gloriam  accendat,  et  admoneat,  quisnam  esse  debeat  votorum  nos- 
trorum  scopus,  sed  etiam  ut  doceat,  pieces  nostras,  quae  hie  nobis  dic- 
tatae  sunt,  nou  alibi  quam  in  Deo  solo  fundatas  esse,  ne  propriis  meritis 
nitamur."  f  De  Orat.  Domin.  orat.  v. 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  429 

and  ever,  Amen."  Yet  he  does  not  give  this  as  a  part  of 
the  sacred  text.  In  like  manner,  Caesarius  adduces  a  doxo- 
logy  twice,  not  as  a  part  of  Scriptm-e,  but  of  a  Liturgy :  cou  hn 
TO  x^uTog  xai  rj  jSasiXn'a  xal  tj  bwaiMig  xai  i]  b<j'^a  rov  'Trar^o;  xai  rov 
v/ou  Tial  Tou  ayiou  iriiibiJjaroc,  \ivv  xal  dti  xai  i'lg  rovg  alujvag  ruv 
aiuvcuv;*  "  thine  is  the  might,  and  the  kingdom,  and  the  power, 
and  the  glory  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  now  and  always,  and  for  ever  and  ever."  Euthymius 
blames  the  Massilians  for  despising  the  invocation  added  hy  the 
fathers^  viz.    rh  iraoa  Tujv  &ii(/iv  fuSrri^uv  xal  ttj^  sxxX^ffiag  xadriyrircov 

rr^os-idh  dxPonXsvriov   I'jrifuvyjfia rb  oV/   aov  lariv  rj  ^aSiXsia   xai  rj 

86^a  TOU  iraT^hg  xai  tou  u'iou  xal  tou  dy/ou  wsufjiyaTog,  ouds  dxouoai 
dvixovTai ;  "  for  thine  is  the  kingdom  and  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  doxology  is 
also  omitted  by  the  Latin  fathers,  TertuUian,  Cyprian,  Juven- 
cus,  Chromatius,  Ambrose,  Sedulius,  Fulgentius,  and  Jerome, 
who  did  not  find  it  in  the  gospel  of  the  Nazarenes.  Tertul- 
lian  expressly  calls  the  sixth  petition,  the  clausula  of  the 
prayer. 

Most  authorities  that  omit  the  doxology  omit  ' Afiriv.  But 
some  add  di^nv  which  want  the  doxology. 

As  to  internal  arguments  against  the  authenticity,  two  have 
been  advanced,  one  by  Beugel,  the  other  by  Tholuck.  The 
former  says :  "  In  some  such  way  we  celebrate  him,  with 
which  while  we  are  sojourners  and  soldiers  we  ought  to  be 
content.  "When  all  the  sons  of  God  shall  have  arrived  at  the 
goal,  there  will  be  nothing  but  doxology  in  heaven ;  His 
Kingdom  has  come,  his  will  has  then  been  done,  he  has  forgiven 
our  sins,  &c. ;  but  petition  was  more  suitable  to  the  time  when 
our  Lord  prescribed  this  formula  of  prayer  to  his  disciples, 
than  praise.     Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified,"  &c.  f     But  Tholuck 

*  Dialog.  I.  Qu.  29,  and  Dial.  in.  116. 
t  "  Scopus  orationis  dominicae  hie  est,  ut  doceamur  paucis  petere  ea 
quorum  indiffemus,  v.  8,  et  ipsa  oratio,  etiam  citra  doxologiam,  summam 


430  •  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

appositely  observes,  that  this  objection  takes  too  little  notice 
of  the  prayer's  etiological  form. 

Tholuck  states  that  the  arrangement  of  the  three  predicates 
fiasiXiia,  h-bvafiiQ^  and  b6t,a,  would  correspond  better  with  the 
two  triads  of  petitions,  if  the  dvm/xig  stood  before  the  ^asiXiia* 

To  this  we  may  add,  that  there  is  no  doxology  in  Luke 
where  the  same  prayer  is  recorded ;  nor  do  any  MSS.  of  his 
gospel  which  have  not  been  interpolated  exhibit  a  conclusion 
similar  to  that  here  found.  This  corroborates  tlie  view  of 
those  who  look  upon  the  doxology  as  spurious.  Should  it  be 
said  that  the  words  were  struck  out  of  the  text  in  Matthew  to 
render  it  more  conformable  to  Luke,  the  allegation  is  not 
probable.  It  would  have  been  marvellous  that  a  few  daring 
transcribers  or  commentators  should  have  omitted  the  doxology ; 
and  if  so  many  writers  of  undoubted  reputation  and  piety 
could  have  joined  in  the  omission  of  a  most  beautiful  and  ap- 
propriate conclusion  to  the  model  of  prayer  taught  by  our 
Lord.  Hence  we  cannot  receive  the  explanation  given  by 
Matthaei,  nor  admit  the  probability  of  his  conjecture  that  the 
corruption  is  to  be  traced  to  Origen. 

The  words  are  expunged  from  the  text  by  the  great  ma- 
jority of  critical  editors,  the  Complutensian  ones,  Erasmus, 
Bengelius,  Mill,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Schok,  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  and  others.  They  are  also  reckoned  spurious  by 
Grotius,  Camerarius,  Luther,  Zwingli,  fficolampadius,  Pellican, 
Bucer,  Melancthon,  Drusius,  Walton,  Mill,  Grabe,  PfafF,  Penn, 
De  Wette,  Tholuck,  &c.  &c. 

laudis  divinae  imbibit. — Celebramus  eum  autem  (patrem  coelestem)  tali 
fere  modo,  quo  peregrinantes  et  militantes  contenti  esse  debemus.  Ubi 
ad  metam  pervenerit  universitas  filiorum  Dei,  mera  fiet  ia  coelo  doxologia 
sanctificetiir,  nomen  Dei  nostri :  venit  regnum  ejus,  facta  est  voluntas 
ejus,  remisit  nobis  feccata,  etc.  praesertim  tempori  illi,  quo  Dominus  banc 
formulam  discipulis  praescripsit,  convenientior  erat  rogatio  quam  hym- 
uus.     Jesus  nondum  erat  glorificatus,  etc." — Gnomon. 

*  Auslegung  der  BergpreJigt,  p.  388,  third  edition. 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    PASSAGES.  431 

Looking  at  tlie  state  of  evidence  on  both  sides,  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  words  are  not  a  part  of  the  prayer  as  at 
first  spoken  and  written. 

It  is  an  important  circumstance  that  B.  D.  Z.  are  against 
them,  whose  value  cannot  be  outweighed  by  K.  H.  V.  A  with 
the  whole  host  of  cursive  copies.  The  evidence  of  versions  is 
contradictory  ;  but  most  of  the  fathers  knew  nothing  of  the 
words.  The  oldest  MSS.  and  the  very  old  Memphitic  and 
Latin  versions  want  them,  shewing  that  the  icestern  class  in 
both  its  families  was  a  stranger  to  the  clause.  Very  impor- 
tant however  is  the  Peshito  as  a  witness  for  the  authenticity. 
Yet  in  this  case,  as  in  others,  there  is  good  ground  for  sus- 
pecting that  it  has  been  interpolated.  In  the  Syriac  gospels 
of  Cureton  the  doxology  is  shorter  than  in  its  present  state ; 
shewing  that  it  was  at  the  time  in  progress  of  formation.  It 
had  not  then  grown  to  its  full  size. 

The  fathers  are  decidedly  against  the  authenticity.  Such 
critics  as  Origen  and  Jerome  knew  nothing  of  it  in  their  day, 
or  did  not  regard  it  as  a  part  of  our  Saviour's  words.  It  seems 
to  have  been  appended  in  some  copies  at  least  about  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century  to  the  Lord's  prayer  ;  and  therefore  it  is 
in  Chrysostom  and  the  Gothic  version ;  unless  indeed  the  works 
of  the  Constantinopolitan  father  have  suffered  interpolation 
here,  as  in  other  cases.  It  is  most  likely  that  the  origin  is 
Constantinopolitan  or  Asiatic,  as  Bengel  rightly  supposed. 

The  variety  of  forms  in  which  the  words  appear  is  also 
adverse  to  their  authenticity ;  for  had  they  been  a  part  of 
Matthew's  gospel  at  first,  we  cannot  account  for  the  shapes  in 
which  they  appear. 

The  interpolation  may  be  explained  in  a  very  natural  way. 
The  clause  Avas  transferred  from  liturgical  forms  to  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  custom  of  responding  to  prayers 
passed  from  the  Jewish  to  the  Christian  church ;  the  people 
sometimes  pronouncing  the  single  word  Amen,  and  sometimes 


432  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

more.  This  explains  the  different  modes  in  which  the  clause 
appears  in  different  MSS.,  and  the  retention  of  dfj.rjv  in  several 
copies  which  have  not  the  preceding  (interpolated)  words. 
We  believe  therefore,  that  the  doxology  originated  in  the 
ancient  litm-gies.* 

Matthew  xix.  17. 

T/  fMi  Xsyni  dyaSov  y   ovdslg  dyadhg,  u  ix,r\  sJg  6  hog. 

"  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  There  is  none  good  but  one, 
that  is  God." 

Such  is  the  reading  of  the  received  text  in  this  place. 

Another  reading  is :  t/^s  i^urdg  m^l  rov  dyadov  ;  tig  lerh  b 
dyaUg. 

Here  from  the  nature  of  the  clauses  and  of  the  evidence,  it 
will  be  better  to  consider  them  separately. 

T/  /jji  s^djrdg  vs^i  rov  dyadou. 

1.  This  is  found  in  B.  D.  (D.,  and  Origen  once,  omit  rov) 
L.  1,  22,  X  of  Matthaei  a  secunda  manu,  where  it  is  written 
twice,  once  in  the  usual  manner,  afterwards  in  this  way.  The 
same  reading  exists  in  the  Memphitic,  Sahidic,  Ethiopic, 
Armenian,  in  the  margin  of  the  Philoxenian,  the  Vulgate,  the 
old  Latin  (except  cod.  Brixianus).  Origen  quotes  it  four 
times.  Eusebius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  sometimes,  the  so-called 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  Antiochus,  Novatian,  Jerome, 
Augustine  Juvencus  also  have  it. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  the  received  reading  T/  ,«,£  Xsysig 
dyadov^  is  found  in  all  MSS.  of  the  Constantinopolitan  recen- 
sion, including  C.  E.  K.  S.  V.  A  ;  in  both  the  Syriac  versions, 
in  the  Arabic,  Persic,  and  Slavonic  versions,  the  cod.  Brixianus 
of  the  old  Latin  version  ;  in  Justin  Martyr,  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
mostly,  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  Theophylact,  and  others.  A 
has  ri  fLi  dya66v. 

*  See  Roediger's  Synopsis  Evangelioruin,  &c.  Appendix  iii.  p.  229, 
et  seq. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF    PASSAGES.  433 

E/'g  sffriv  6  dyaOoc. 

1.  This  is  found  in  B.  D.  (but  D.  omits  6)  L.  1,  22,  the 
Armenian  version,  the  Jerusalem-Syriac,  some  codices  of  the 
old  Latin,  Origen  who  quotes  it  three  times,  and  Justin 
Martyr  possibly. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  o-udslg  dyadhg  h  i^ri  iJg  It  &i6g  is  found  in  all 
MSS.  of  the  Constantinopolitan  class,  in  the  various  versions 
not  quoted  for  the  other,  in  Chrysostom,  the  author  of  a  Dia- 
logue concerning  the  Trinity,  Ambrose  and  others.  U.  omits 
0  the  article. 

There  are  otlier  varieties  of  reading  as 

E/j  s<sri]i  6  dyaShg  6  kog  supported  by  the  Memphitic,  Vulgate, 
and  many  MSS.  of  the  old  Latin,  Novatian,  &c. 

Wig  s<friv  6  dyadog  6  irarrj^^  and  iig  s(Stiv  6  dyadog  6s6g  6  -Tar/i^, 
are  supported  by  very  few  documents. 

It  is  apparent  that  our  choice  lies  between  the  common 
readmg  and  r!  fn  souirag  ts^/  toZ  dyadou  ;  sTg  scfriv  6  dyadog. 
But  it  is  not  easy  to  decide  between  them  ;  for  the  authorities 
are  not  preponderating  in  favour  of  either.  B.  D.  are  certainly 
weighty  documents  for  the  latter  reading ;  but  such  MSS.  as 
C.  and  A  for  the  former  are  also  important.  The  evidence  of 
versions  and  fathers  is  contradictory  and  perplexing. 

Nor  can  much  be  inferred  from  internal  considerations.  Tt 
is  urged  with  plausibility  that  the  common  reading  has  arisen 
from  a  desire  to  make  Matthew's  text  conformable  to  those  of 
Mark  and  Luke.  It  is  also  the  easier  and  less  difficult  reading ; 
and  should  therefore  be  regarded  as  inferior  to  the  more 
obscure. 

On  the  other  side,  in  favour  of  the  common  reading  it  may 
be  said  that  it  arose  from  anti-Arian  polemics,  as  Baumgarten- 
Crusius  thought,  or  by  the  arbitrary  meddling  of  Origen,  as 
Wetstein  supposed ;  or  that  it  originated  in  the  accidental 
omission  of  dyadi  in  the  sixteenth  verse,  by  which  ri  ,aj  Xsysig 
VOL.  II.  2  F 


434  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

aya&hv  became  incongruous,  and  had  to  be  altered  into  ri  ^s 
s^urag  'xspi  rou  ayadov.     But  these  are  mere  conjectures. 

On  the  whole,  we  prefer  the  latter  reading  with  Griesbach, 
Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf.* 

Matthew  xxi.  28-31. 

1.  " Av6pM'—rjg  i]yj  r'i'/iva  duo'  xai  T^offiXduiv  rtZ  T(;(Jjrui  uirv  rsxvov, 
'xjiraji  g'/j/jji^ov,  s^yd'C^ov  h  rw  a/z-TsXa;!// /xou.  'O  hs  ocTTOxgidsig  sItbv  oh 
dsXw  uffn^ov  ds  /Msra/MsX/idiig  aitrikh.  Ka)  T^oasXduv  rui  srsgw  zlviv 
ojdavrug.  6  ds  d<:rox^idsig  uinr  syoj  xh^iv  xai  ohx  a'xrfk&i.  Tig  sx  rm 
hbo  lTroir\6i  to  SgXjj//,a  tou  'xarpog  ;   Xsyouo'/i'  ahrui'  o  'r^Sjrog. 

This  is  Griesbach's  reading,  differing  from  the  received 
one  only  in  having  irspw  instead  of  dsurspoj^  which  is  an  unim- 
portant variation. 

2.  Another  form  in  which  the  passage  appears  is  with 
6  uffTs^og  instead  of  6  crpwro?. 

3.  A  third  form  is  :  xat  'ir^oSiX&uv  ruJ  t^utuj  sItb'  rsxvov,  uTays 
ffrifis^ov,  s^yd^ou  sv  tOj  d/Jb'jsXuvi  [JjOV.  '  O  hs  ocxox^iGstg  si-mv  syu  xv^n 
xai  ovx  aTT^Xdiv.  Kat  T^offsX^t/jv  roj  sts^uj  bi'Tsv  ueaurojg.  6  ds  d'xoxp- 
&sig  iJ'TTsr  oh  6sXc)j'  '-jan^ov  hi  ijjiran,iXri&sig  d'zriXhv^  x.  ~.  X.  as  No.  1. 

There  are  also  minor  variations,  but  such  as  are  compara- 
tively trifling ;  and  therefore  they  may  be  omitted. 

It  should  also  be  observed,  that  some  authorities  which 
have  uffTspog  (or  sa^uTog)  instead  of  'rrpcijrog  (No.  2),  follow  the 
order  of  No.  3,  wliile  others  of  them  retain  the  common 
order. 

2.  We  may  put  together  the  authorities  for  uari^og  and  its 
equivalents  saxarog  and  dshrspog,  in  verse  31.  For  this  reading- 
then  we  have,  B.  D.  4,  13,  69,  the  Jerusalem-Syriac,  Mem- 
phitic,  Armenian,  Arabic  of  the  Polyglott,  Vulgate,  old  Latin, 
Hippolytus,  Hilary,  Isidore,  John  of  Damascus,  Pseudo- 
Athanasius,  Augustine,  Juvencus,  &c.  It  should  be  remarked 
*  See  Griesbach's  Commentarius  Criticus,  part  i.  p.  154. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  435 

liowever,  that  all  MSS.  of  the  old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate  have 
not  this  reading.  Yet  the  best  of  both  have  it,  the  codd, 
Vercellensis,  Veronensis,  Corbeiensis  of  the  one;  and  the 
Evangelium  Palatinum  of  Jerome's  translation.  Novissimus 
was  the  Latin  reading.  Jerome  appeals  to  other  copies  which 
read  primus — ex.  gr.  the  cod.  Brixianus. 

3.  This  form  of  the  text  is  contained  in  some  of  the  autho- 
rities which  read  6  ucn^og  or  some  of  its  equivalents,  such  as  B. 
4, 13,  69, 124,  238, 262,  346,  the  Memphitic,  Jerusalem-Sjriac, 
Arabic  of  the  Polyglott,  and  of  Erpenius,  Isidore,  John  of 
Damascus,  Pseudo-Athanasius,  and  some  MSS.  of  the  old 
Latin  and  Jerome's  version.  It  is  not  in  D.  and  most  MSS. 
of  the  old  Latin,  and  the  Vulgate. 

With  the  exception  of  the  authorities  in  favour  of  2  and  3, 
all  others  have  the  received  reading  (1.) 

In  regard  to  No.  2,  we  are  inclined  to  adopt  it  as  the  true 
reading  on  the  valuable  authority  of  B.  and  D.  as  well  as  the 
old  Latin  and  Jerome's  translation.  This  is  corroborated  by 
the  fact  that  Hippolytus  states  the  answer  of  the  Jews  to 
Christ  was  the  latter^  not  the  former ;  along  with  Origen's 
testimony  of  the  answers  of  the  two  sons  being  in  the  order  in 
which  they  stand  in  the  received  text — i.  e.  the  first  son  refusing 
and  afterwards  going ;  the  second  promising  and  not  going. 
Lachmann  has  accordingly  taken  6  Dcrsf-og  instead  of  o  rr^urog 
into  the  text. 

No.  2,  which  we  look  upon  as  the  original  reading,  led  to 
No.  3.  It  was  found  difficult  to  explain  the  passage  with  the 
answers  of  the  two  sons  as  they  are,  and  the  Jews'  reply  to  our 
Lord  6  vaTioog ;  and  therefore  the  order  was  inverted  to  obviate 
the  difficulty.  Even  B.  has  the  order  changed,  in  which 
however,  Lachmann  has  not  followed  it,  and  properly  so. 

The  difficulty  is  very  considerable.  How  could  the  Jews 
say  that  h  'jari^ng  did  the  will  of  his  father,  Avhen  it  was  the 
first  son  who  repented  and  went  into  the  vineyard  according  to 


436  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

the  father's  desire?  The  expression  6  ugrsgog  must  be  ex- 
plained with  Schweizer  and  Tregelles,  he  who  afterwards  loent. 
It  does  not  refer  to  the  order  in  which  the  two  sons  are  men- 
tioned, but  to  his  after  conduct;  or  in  other  words,  to  the 
expression   uer^ov  hi  fiirai/jiXrikig  airyjXQi. 

The  common  reading  -r^ujrog  Avas  another  expedient  for 
evading  the  difficulty  besides  the  inversion  of  the  order  of  the 
answers  given  by  the  two  sons.  The  reading  of  the  old  Latin 
version  adopted  by  Lachmanu,  as  being  the  most  difficult,  and 
as  explaining  the  origin  of  the  others,  should  be  preferred  as 
the  true  one. 

Matthew  xxvii.  35,  36. 

["Iva  'TrXripojdfi  ro  £rjdiv  v-Th  rou  T^opfirow  dis/xi^igavTO  roc  ///.ar/a  //.ou 
sauroTg,  xai  s-TTi  tov  i/J,aTiff//,6v  /u,ov  s^aXov  kXtjpov].  Kai  x,ad'/}>jusv0i  sryj^ovv 
auTov  iXiT. 

"  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophet.  They  parted  my  garments  among  them,  and  upon  my 
vesture  did  they  cast  lots." 

The  words  enclosed  in  brackets  are  omitted  in  many 
authorities. 

1.  They  are  wanting  in  all  the  uncial  MSS.  except  A,  such 
as  A.  B.  D.  E.  F.  G.  H.  K.  L.  M.  S.  U.  V.  and  a  great  many 
cursive  ones  enumerated  by  Scholz.  They  are  also  wanting 
in  a  number  of  evayigelistaria. 

2.  They  are  not  in  the  old  Syriac,  at  least  in  the  MSS.  of 
it,  and  in  some  editions  also ;  and  hence  a  note  in  the  margin 
of  the  later  Syriac  states  that  they  are  not  in  the  old  Syriac 
nor  in  two  [or  three]  Greek  copies.  Neither  are  they  found  in 
the  Arabic  of  the  Polyglott,  the  Persic  of  Wheloc,  the  Mem- 
phitic,  Sahidic,  Ethiopic,  Slavonic.  They  are  also  wanting  in 
many  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate,  as  well  as  the  Sixtine  edition  ; 
and  in  many  MSS.  of  the  old  Latin,  among  which  is  the  cod. 
Brixianus. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  437 

3.  Chrysostom,  Titus  of  Bostra,  Eutliymius,  Tlieophylact, 
Origen,  Hilary,  Augustine,  Juvencus  omit  them.  On  the 
strength  of  this  ancient  evidence,  the  passage  is  rightly  ex- 
punged from  the  editions  of  Griesbach,  Scholz,  Lachmann, 
and  Tischendorf.  The  testimony  in  favour  of  the  passage  is 
quite  unimportant,  consisting  of  A  and  a  great  number  of 
cursive  MSS.,  some  MSS.  of  the  old  Latin  and  Vulgate, 
Philoxenian  Syriac,  the  Jerusalem- Syriac,  the  Arabic  of  the 
Roman  edition,  the  Persian  of  the  Polyglott,  and  Armenian 
versions.  Thus  external  evidence  is  decisive  against  the  pas- 
sage. It  seems  to  have  been  at  first  a  marginal  annotation 
borrowed  from  John  xix.  24,  and  afterwards  taken  into  the 
text.  Schulz  however  calls  attention  to  the  fact,  that  no  other 
evangelist  except  Matthew  uses  the  formula  ha  'TrXri^oi&f  rh 
^ridh,  and  that  Bia  for  i/to  which  the  Latin  version  appears 
to  have  had  in  the  original  whence  it  was  taken,  is  conformable 
to  Matthew's  usual  manner. 

Luke  xxii.  43,  44. 

"i1cp6ri  ds  avrui  ayysXog  d-r  ohpavou  sviff^xjojv  avrov.  /tal  yevo/Mvog 
sv  dyctivia  sTiTSVserspov  ^pogyiuy^sro.  sysvsro  8i  o  'ib^ojg  ahroZ  uffsi  'd^6/MJ3oi 
a'i/!/,arog  xaTalSalvovrsg  hiri  ttiV  yyjv. 

"  And  there  appeared  an  angel  unto  him  from  heaven, 
strengthening  him.  And  being  in  an  agony,  he  prayed  more 
earnestly ;  and  his  sweat  was  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood 
falling  down  to  the  ground." 

Authorities  are  divided  as  to  the  insertion  or  omission  of 
these  words.     Let  us  look  at  the  evidence  on  both  sides. 

They  are  omitted  by  the  following : — 

1.  A.  B.  13,  69,  124.  It  should  be  observed  however,  that 
the  Alexandrine  MS.  A.,  though  it  wants  the  verses,  has  the 
Ammonian  section  in  the  margin.  In  13  the  first  hand  wrote 
only  ufdri  hi.     A  later  hand  supplied  the  rest  in  the  margin. 


438  BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

In  69  they  are  put  after  Matt.  xxvi.  39.  They  are  also  omitted 
iny  or  cod.  Brixianus  of  the  old  Latin,  in  the  Sahidic  version, 
and  one  ]\IS.  of  the  Memphitic.  They  are  likewise  omitted  in 
evangelistaria  in  the  lesson  commencing  with  xxii.  39  and 
ending  with  xxiii.  1 ;  though  the  same  documents  have  them 
in  the  lesson  Matt.  xxvi.  2 — xxvii.  2,  where  after  the  twentieth 
verse  are  introduced  John  xiii.  3-17  ;  and  after  the  thirty-ninth, 
Luke  xxii.  43-45. 

Li  L.  the  verses  want  the  Ammonian  number  and  Eusebian 
canon.  The  verses  are  written,  but  marked  with  asterisks,  in 
E.  S.  V.  A.  24,  36,  161,  166,  274 ;  and  with  obeli  in  123, 
344. 

Hilary  states  :  "  Et  in  Graecis  et  in  Latinis  codicibus  com- 
plurimis,  vel  de  adveniente  angelo  vel  de  sudore  sanguinis  nil 
scriptum  reperiri."  *  "  In  very  many  Greek  and  Latin  copies 
nothing  was  written  either  about  the  appearance  of  an  angel 
or  the  bloody  sweat."  Jerome  testifies  much  the  same  thing. 
"  In  quibusdam  exemplaribus  tam  Graecis  quam  Latinis  in- 
venitur,  Scribente  Luca:  Apparuit  illi  AngeluSj^  &c.t  In 
like  manner  a  scholium  on  cod.  34  says :  "  It  should  be  known 
that  some  copies  have  not  the  words  relating  to  the  drops 
[of  blood]."      Epiphanius  writes:  'AXXd  xa/  "  sxXauo-s "  zsTrai 

iv  rip  Kara  Aoox.  ivayyiXi'uj  sv  ro7g  ddio^duroig  avriy^d^oig 

hD&6ho^(ii  bs  dfiiAovro  ro  ^rjrov,  -/..  r.  x.\  "  But  he  even  '  wept '  is 
found  in  the  gospel  according  to  Luke  in  the  uncorrected 
copies,  but  the  orthodox  have  taken  away  that  which  was 
said,"  &c. 

The  Syrians  are  censured  by  Photius,  tlie  Armenians  by 
Nicon,  Isaac  the  Catholic,  and  others,  for  expunging  the 
])assage. 

*   De  Tiinitate,  Lib.  x.  jx  1062,  ed.  Benedict. 

t  0pp.  vol.  iv.  p,  521,  ed.  Benedict. 

%   Epiphanii  Ancorat.  ed.  Petavii,  vol.  ii.  p.  3b'. 


CRITICAL  EXAMINATION  OF  PASSAGES.  439 

2.  The  passage  is  retained  by 

D.  F.  G.  H.  K.  L.  M.  Q.  U.  X.  and  by  all  other  MSS. 
except  those  already  mentioned.  It  is  also  in  all  versions 
with  the  exception  of  the  few  specified  before,  as  the  old  Latin, 
(except  the  Brescian  codex),  the  Vulgate,  two  MSS.  of  the 
Memphitic,  &c.  It  i%  referred  to  by  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus, 
Hippolytus,  Chrysostoni,  Titus  of  Bostra,  Caesarius,  &c. 
The  Eusebian  canon  in  M.  recognises  it. 

According  to  Granville  Penn,  there  is  internal  evidence 
which  speaks  decidedly  for  the  spuriousness  of  these  verses. 
He  says,  that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  an  angel  to  supply 
strength  to  Christ's  spiritual  nature,  though  his  human  nature 
received  food  from  the  hands  of  angels  after  his  temptation.* 
But  this  takes  for  granted  that  the  angel  who  appeared  gave 
strength  to  his  divine  nature.  We  are  disposed  to  think  that 
his  human  nature  received  help  from  angels  at  this  time. 

The  words  are  retained  by  Griesbach,  Scholz,  and  Tisch- 
endorf.     Lachmann  puts  them  in  brackets. 

In  considering  the  evidence  for  and  against  them,  we 
observe,  that  though  omitted  by  A.  and  B.,  both  Justin  and 
Irenaeus  were  acquainted  with  their  existence.  Nor  can  any 
probable  cause  be  assigned  for  their  insertion,  supposing  them 
spurious  ;  whereas  it  is  likely  that  they  may  have  been  omitted 
from  doctrinal  scruples  finding  the  ideas  contained  in  them 
unworthy  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus.  This  is  intimated  by 
Epiphanius,  who  speaks  of  the  orthodox  expunging  the  words 
through  fear  of  infringing  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  proper  deity. 
Hence  we  are  inclined  to  retain  the  passage  as  a  constituent 
part  of  the  genuine  gospel  according  to  Luke. 

Acts  viii.  37. 

E?T£  ds  6  (^/X/ffTTos  £/  ■TTiGTiuiic,  Ig  i'Xjjs  TYig  zapdiag  'i^iffrir  u-roKpi- 
6iig  hi  i'l'TTi'   TLiimvoj  rhv  u'lhv  rou  6sou  sivai  'irjffouv  Xpidrov. 

*  Annotations  to  the  Book  of  the  New  Covenant,  p.  2-kS. 


440  BIBLICAL    CKITICISM. 

"  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart, 
thou  mayest.  Aud  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God." 

It  is  now  very  generally  agreed  among  critics  that  these 
words  are  spurious.  The  evidence  against  them  is  indeed 
sufficient  to  cause  their  rejection.  , 

1.  They  are  wanting  in  A.  B.  C.  G.  H.  and  upwards  of 
sixty  other  MSS,  which  have  been  cited.  They  are  also 
omitted  in  many  Lectionaries. 

2.  Of  versions,  they  are  not  in  the  Memphitic,  Sahidic,  Old 
Syriac,  Ethiopic,  Erpenian  Arabic,  Slavonic  in  two  MSS. 

3.  Chrysostom  passes  over  the  passage  twice.  Q^cumenius 
has  it  at  least  in  one  MS.,  Theophylact  once,  and  Bede. 

1.  On  the  other  hand,  the  words  are  in  E.  and  a  considerable 
number  of  cursive  MSS.,  eleven  of  which  are  formally  cited  by 
Scholz. 

2.  It  is  in  the  Vulgate  (not  the  codex  Amiatinus)  the 
Armenian,  the  Arabic  of  the  Polyglott,  the  Slavonic  but  not 
in  two  MSS.     The  Philoxenian  has  it  with  an  asterisk. 

3.  It  is  quoted  by  Irenaeus  (Greek  and  Latin),  fficumenius, 
Theophylact  twice,  Cyprian,  Praedestinatus,  Pacian,  Jerome, 
Augustine,  Bede  who  says  that  it  was  not  in  the  Greek. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  words  are  not  contained  in 
the  same  form  in  the  authorities  which  have  them.  Many 
varieties  exist,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  editions  of  Griesbach, 
Scholz,  and  Tischendorf.  This  fact,  together  with  the  nature 
of  the  evidence,  leaves  little  doubt  on  the  mind  that  the  passage 
is  an  interpolation,  which,  having  been  written  at  first  as  a 
marginal  note,  was  taken  into  the  text.  It  has  been  suggested 
by  Meyer,  that  it  was  derived  from  some  baptismal  liturgy, 
and  was  added  here  lest  it  might  appear  that  the  eunuch  was 
baptized  without  evidence  of  his  faith. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   PASSAGES.  441 

Acts  XX.  28. 

Upoffs^iri  ovv  savToTg  xai  rrocvTi  rSi  toz/awoi,  Iv  Si  b/xac,  to  irviitiMa  to 
dyiov  idiro  st/cxoVous,  '^oi/Mahnv  rr,'j  sKxXrigiav  tov  dsov,  ^v  TspiS'Troiyiffaro 
bia,  Tov  ai/J^arog  rou  idiov. 

"  Take  heed  therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock, 
over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to 
feed  the  chm-ch  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood." 

In  this  passage  there  is  a  great  variety  of  reading.  Let 
us  consider  each  form  of  it  by  itself. 

1.  riiv  l-/,z'Ar,6ia.v  rov  ko\J.      The  chiiTch  of  Qod. 

2.  r^v  s-AKXrifflav  Tod  Tivplov.      The  church  of  the  Lord. 

3. xvoio\j%ai  dio\J.   Thechu7'chof  our  Lord  and  God. 

4. xvpiov  kov.      The  church  of  the  Lord  Qod. 

5. ko\i  -/Ml  Kupiov.   The  church  of  our  God  and  Lord. 

6.  X^id-ou.      The  church  of  Christ. 

The  evidence  in  favour  of  each  is  the  following : — 

1.   kov. 

{a.)  This  is  supported  by  B.  and  about  20  cursive  MSS. 

Formerly  it  was  doubted  about  the  true  reading  of  the  cod. 
Vaticanus.  But  it  certainly  reads  rov  kov,  as  Birch,  who 
had  seen  the  MS.,  gave  the  reading  of  it  at  first  in  his  Variae 
Lectiones  ad  textum  Act.  app.  (p.  49).  Two  years  later^  how- 
ever, he  unfortunately  threw  doubts  upon  his  own  statement, 
in  the  Prolegomena  to  his  various  readings  on  the  Apocalypse 
(p.  39).  We  are  assured  by  Tischendorf,  who  saw  the  MS. 
more  than  once,  that  it  has  the  received  reading  in  this  place. 
But  it  has  been  said,  that  though  it  has  koZ  noiu,  it  had  ?tvp'iov 
at  first.  It  has  suffered  correction  in  the  place.  This  affir- 
mation of  erasure  and  revisal  in  the  present  word  rests  on  no 
foundation.  All  that  Gabler  and  Kuinoel  give  for  it  is  the 
circumstance  that  B.  in  reading  here  rou  a'l/iarog  tov  Idiov 
agrees  with  the  MSS.  with  which  it  generally  coincides  in 


442  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 

other  places  and  which  read  xupiou.  Hence  it  is  concluded, 
that  as  B.  commonly  coincides  with  the  copies  that  exhibit 
xu^/ou,  and  agrees  with  them  moreover  in  a  certain  reading  in 
this  very  place  (roD  aiij^arog  rou  Idlou),  it  must  have  originally 
had  Ttvpiov  in  the  text,  just  as  they  have ;  for  which  dsov  was 
subsequently  interpolated.  We  greatly  prefer  the  testimony 
of  eye-witnesses  to  this  kind  of  reasoning,  which  is  by  no  means 
conclusive. 

(b.)  It  is  also  in  the  Vulgate,  the  Philoxenian  Syriac  in  the 
text,  and  a  Syriac  Lectionary  in  the  Vatican,  of  the  eleventh 
century.  It  should  be  observed  that  it  is  in  such  MSS.  of  the 
Vulgate  as  the  cod.  Amiatinus,  demidovianus,  toletanus,  &c. 

(c.)  Epiphanius,  Antiochus,  Caelestine,  fficumenius,  Am- 
brose, Orosius,  Fulgentius,  Cassiodorus,  Ferrandus,  Primasins, 
Martin,  Bede,  Etherius  have  6iov.     Theophylact  has  it  twice. 

Ignatius  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  uses  the  phrase 
a/>a  diov.  But  in  the  larger  recension  he  has  Xpiarou  instead 
of  Ssou.  It  would  appear  hoAvever  from  the  context,  that  he 
does  not  adopt  it  as  a  quotation  ;  nor  is  it  likely  that  he  had 
in  his  mind  Acts  xx.  28.  Basil  in  his  •^dizd*  has  hov,  but 
Wetstein  doubts  whether  he  has  been  rightly  edited.  X^iarou 
is  said  by  Griesbach  to  be  in  the  Breviarmm,  by  which  he  can 
only  mean  Basil's  Regidae  hrevms  tractatae.  We  have 
searched  for  it  there  in  vain.  Chrysostom  has  koZ  three  times, 
but  once  he  has  y.upiou.  Besides  his  commentary  on  the  place  is 
i'lyi  6  dsgTorrig  lirsp  rrig  IxxAjjtf/ag,  which  appears  to  require 
xupiou^  as  Mill  remarked.f  One  MS.  too  omits  the  words  from 
6  hs'Trorrtg  to  szK7.riffiag.  Athanasius  in  his  first  epistle  to 
Serapion  has  dsov,  but  one  MS.  reads  xupiou.  Another  has 
x^isrou.  Thus  though  the  first  edition  of  Athanasius  has 
diou,  four  MSS.  have  other  readings.:|:     With  regard  to  Ibas, 

*  Reg.  8(',  cap.  16,  vol.  ii.  p.  385,  ed.  Paris  1618. 
t  Chrysostomi  0pp.  vol.  ix.  p.  333,  eel.  Benedict. 
+  See  0pp.  vol.  i.  part  ii.  p.  653,  ed.  Benedict. 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OP   PASSAGES.  443 

it  should  be  also  observed,  that  though  he  has  diov  in  Greek, 
yet  in  the  Latin  version  it  is  Domini^  in  his  epistle  to  Marinus 
in  the  Acts  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon  as  printed  by  Mansi.* 
Ambrose,  though  rightly  cited  as  -we  believe  for  ^soi7,f  is  said 
by  Bengelius  to  have  both  6iou  and  -av^'iov.  Is  not  this 
critic  mistaken  in  the  affirmation  ?  Besides  Ignatius,  Tertul- 
lian  uses  the  phrase,  sanguis  Dei.  \  John  of  Damascus,  Theo- 
phylact,  Leontius,  and  others  also  have  it ;  though  the  ex- 
pression was  considered  improper  and  unscriptural  by  some, 
as  by  Origen  against  Celsus,  §  by  Chrysostom,  ||  by  Theo- 
doret,^  by  Isidore,  and  by  Gregory  Nyssene,*^  &c. 

2.    xv^lou. 

(a.)  This  reading  is  supported  by  A.  C.  D.  E.  and  fourteen 
cvirsive  MSS. 

(h.)  It  is  in  the  Mempliitic,  Sahidic,  Armenian,  and  the 
margin  of  the  later  Syriac.  According  to  Griesbach,  the 
Ethiopic  probably  had  this  reading,  since  it  commonly  agrees 
with  the  Memphitic  and  Armenian.  The  term  employed  he 
looks  upon  as  ambiguous  ;  for  it  is  always  employed  whether 
kog  or  -/.vpiog  be  in  the  Greek.  On  the  contrary,  Wakefield, 
pronouncing  the  assertion  of  Griesbach  most  unjustifiable,  says 
that  the  "  Ethiopic  translator  never  employs  the  word  here 
introduced  but  to  signify  the  supreme  God  alone.^^i'f  But  the 
Ethiopic  New  Testament  published  by  the  Bible  Society  has 
Xpiarov.  It  is  likely  that  Ethiopic  MSS.  difier  in  their 
reading  according  as  they  are  older  or  younger.  It  was  also 
in  the  old  Latin,  and  accordingly  we  find  it  in  the  cod.  Cmitab. 
and  in  E.,  tliat  is,  cod.  Laudianus. 

(c.)  It  is  found  in  Eusebius,  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
(belonging  to  the  third  century),  Didymus,  Ammonius,  Maxi- 

*  Vol.  iv.  p.  1578.   t  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  Lib.  ii.   X  Ad  Uxor.  Lib.  ii.  cap.  .3. 

§  Lib.  ii.  II  Homil.  i.  on  Acts.  1"  Dial.  iii. 

**  See  Wetstein,  vol.  ii.  pp.  597,  598. 

ft  Translation  of  the  New  Testament,  vol.  iii.  p.  147. 


444  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

mus,  Theodore  Studites,  the  Latin  interpreter  of  Irenaeus, 
Lucifer,  Augustine,  Jerome,  Sedulius,  Alcimus.  One  MS.  of 
Athanasius  has  this  reading.  Chrysostom  has  it  once,  i.e.  on 
Ephes.  iv.  12  ;  and  probably  here  too.  Theophylact  has  it 
three  times.     The  Latin  of  Ibas  (ad  Marin.)  has  Dominus. 

3.  KVPiov  zai  diov. 

This  reading  is  supported  by  C.  a  tertia  manu,  G.  H.  and 
upwards  of  a  hundred  cursive  MSS.  It  is  also  in  six  lection- 
aries.    The  Slavonic  version  also  has  it ;  and  Theophylact  once. 

4.  XV^IOU    diOV. 

This  is  found  in  3,  95  a  secimda  manu,  and  the  Arabic 
version  in  the  Polyglott.  The  Georgian  has  xuoiou  tqv  hou 
with  the  article  between. 

5.  6iou  -/.a.]  zv^iov. 
This  is  in  codex  47. 

This  reading  is  supported  by  the  Peshito,  the  Erpenian 
Arabic,  Origen  once.  In  another  place  Origen  reads  rrjv  sx- 
xXrisiav  without  the  genitive.  It  is  also  in  three  codices  of 
Athanasius ;  and  twice  in  Theodoret.  The  larger  recension 
of  Ignatius  has  h  a7,«,ar/  X^iarov.  Basil  in  his  Begulae  hrevms 
tractatae  is  also  said  to  have  Xg/oroD  once.  Fulgentlus  (pro 
fide  catholica)  has  it  once. 

In  weighing  the  external  evidence  in  favour  of  these 
varieties,  it  is  obvious  that  Nos.  4  and  5  must  be  at  once  dis- 
carded as  ill  supported.  No.  3  is  supported  by  two  uncial 
MSS.,  and  by  a  very  large  number  of  cursive  ones,  but  these 
are  insufficient  to  recommend  it  to  our  adoption.  No.  6  wants 
MS.  evidence,  though  it  has  one  important  version,  i.e.  the 
Peshito  in  its  favour.  Hence  the  choice  lies  between  Nos.  1 
and  2.  As  far  as  tlie  testimony  of  MSS.  goes,  rov  xvpiou  is 
undoubtedly  best  supported.  It  has  in  its  favour  four  uncial 
ones,  A.  C.  D.  E. ;  while  rov  hou  has  only  B.  The  versions 
are  on  the  same  side ;  for  the  old  Latin  must  be  preferred  to 


CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   PASSAGES.  445 

the  Vulgate.  The  testimony  of  the  fathers  and  ecclesiastical 
writers  is  very  uncertain  and  contradictory.  A  passage  in 
Athanasius  has  been  quoted  as  bearing  on  this  point.  Gries- 
bach  affirms  that  Athanasius  (contra  Apollinar.)  denied  the 
occurrence  of  oAiLa  hov  in  all  Scripture.  Here  however  he 
follows  Wetstein  who  gives  the  words  of  Athanasius  thus: 
o-j8aij,ov  6s  a7fj,a  dsou  xa^'  55/xag  'xa^aosduxaffi  a)  y^acpai.  'Apsidvuv  ra 
Toiavra  ToXfj,7ifx,aTa.  But  though  it  bc  truc  that  the  Paris  edition  of 
Athanasius's  works  published  in  the  year  1627  (vol.  i.  p.  645), 
has  the  words  thus,  yet  they  are  not  correctly  given.  Instead 
of  xad'  nfiac,,  we  should  read  dixot'  ffocf/.bg,  as  indeed  the  Latin 
version  {ci'tra  carnem)  in  the  Paris  edition  itself  shews.  The 
Benedictine  edition  (1698  Paris,  vol.  i.  p.  951)  has  bh/a  ffa^-x-hg ; 
and  the  only  various  reading  noticed  in  it  is  Bia  aa^xog. 
According  to  the  true  language  then  of  Athanasius,  he  asserts 
that  the  Scriptures  never  speak  of  Christ  suffering  as  God, 
without  mentioning  or  implying  his  human  nature  ;  and  in  the 
next  sentence  he  proceeds  to  say  that  "  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
speaking  of  God  in  the  flesh,  and  of  the  flesh  of  God  when  he 
became  man,  mention  the  blood,  and  suiFerings,  and  resurrection 
of  the  body  of  God."  Dr.  Burton  is  probably  wrong  in  saying 
that  "Wetstein  inserted  -ac/J  r,[j.ag  [xa^'  \j[Mag']  from  his  own 
head,  and  left  out  the  words  bh/a  sapmg,  upon  which  the 
whole  meaning  of  the  passage  turns ;  "  *  for  he  may  have 
quoted  from  the  specified  edition. 

With  regard  to  ^sou,  there  are  no  certain  traces  of  it  to  be 
found  in  the  fathers  before  Epiphanius  and  Ambrose ;  nor  was 
it  urged  by  the  orthodox  during  those  fierce  controversies  with 
heretics  which  prevailed  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries; 
though  it  would  have  been  appropriate  against  the  latter.  But 
Ammonius,  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  Eusebius,  Lucifer, 
Augustine,  and  Jerome,  clearly  knew  and  read  -/.vpiav  ;  and  in 

*  Testimonies  of  the  Anti-Nicene  fathers  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
in  theological  works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  20,  21. 


446  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

opposition  to  them,  what  is  the  weight  of  those  who  can  be 
adduced  as  certainly  in  favour  of  ^soD?  Hence  we  believe 
that  -/.vpiov  is  better  supported  by  ancient  writers,  both  Greek 
and  Latin,  than  ko\i.  Thus  external  evidence  in  its  threefold 
division  favours  xD^k-o  more  than  kou  or  any  other  reading ; 
since  the  most  ancient  MSS.  have  it  (except  B.),  and  those  too 
belonging  to  different  classes ;  while,  as  Griesbach  observes, 
they  are  internally  the  best,  scarcely  ever  agreeing  in  any 
reading  that  is  not  approved  by  the  most  skilful  critics.  Then 
again,  ancient  versions  belonging  to  diiferent  countries,  and 
representing  both  oriental  and  occidental  documents,  have 
K\jpo\j ;  while  many  ancient  fathers  sanction  it.  It  is  therefore 
entitled  to  the  preference  on  the  ground  of  external  evidence. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  internal  evidence. 

In  favour  of  ix-A-AYicia  tcZ  dsov^  it  has  been  alleged  that 
the  same  phrase  occurs  often  in  the  New  Testament ;  whereas, 
on  the  contrary,  IxxXriuia  rou  -av^Iou  is  nowhere  found.  And  in 
an  address  made  by  Paul,  that  reading  should  be  preferred 
which  is  conformable  to  the  Pauline  phraseology,  viz.,  rov  ko\J 
for  the  ten  instances  (1  Corinth,  i.  2  ;  x.  32 ;  xi.  16,  22 ; 
XV.  9.  2  Corinth,  i.  1.  Gal.  i.  13.  1  Thes.  ii.  14.  2  Thes. 
i.  4.  1  Timothy  iii.  15),  in  which  iz'/.7.r,sia  rov  kou  occurs, 
are  all  in  Paul's  epistles. 

To  this  it  may  be  replied,  that  Luke  is  the  writer,  not  Paul 
himself;  and  therefore  we  should  attend  to  the  evangelist's 
style,  not  Paul's  own.  But  Luke  is  accustomed  to  put  lx?cX»i(r/a 
without  any  adjunct.  Besides,  in  this  very  discourse,  the 
Father  is  distinguished  from  the  Son  by  being  called  hh? ; 
the  latter  xupiog,  as  may  be  seen  from  verses  19,  21,  24,  25, 
27,  32,  35.  Hence  the  same  distinction  should  be  made  in 
til  is  twenty-eighth  verse. 

Again,  it  may  be  said  that  the  more  difficult,  unusual,  and 
harsh  reading  should  be  preferred  to  the  easier  one.  This  is 
true  only  wlien  the  harsher  reading  is  supported  at  least  by 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION   OF   PASSAGES.  447 

some  ancient  and  weighty  testimonies.  A  reading  unsupported 
by  proper  witnesses  cannot  be  defended  on  the  ground  of  its 
difficulty  alone,  as  Griesbach  has  remarked. 

It  may  also  be  objected,  that  ■/.u^lov  was  borrowed  from 
the  Septuagint  where  the  phrase  r/.xAridia,  to\j  -/.vplov  often  occurs  ; 
and  that  the  term  being  thus  familiar  to  transcribers  easily 
dropped  from  their  pen.     But  this  is  quite  improbable. 

Still  farther;  Latin  transcribers  wrote  Dei  or  rather  Diior 
Domini ;  and  from  such  Latin  copies  those  Greek  ones  which 
have  xxj^io-j  were  corrupted.  But  it  is  only  the  more  recent 
Latin  documents  which  have  Bei^  whereas  the  older  have 
Domini.  It  is  incredible  that  all  the  Greek  MSS.  which  have 
xvp'iov  were  corrupted  from  the  Latin. 

Michaelis  says,  that  dio\J  is  probably  the  true  reading,  and 
all  the  others  corrections  or  scholia,  because  it  might  easily  give 
occasion  to  any  of  these,  whereas  none  could  so  easily  give 
occasion  to  kou.  If  Luke  wrote  koZ,  he  thinks  that  the 
origin  of  -/.upov  and  Xokstw  may  be  explained  either  as  correc- 
tions of  the  text,  or  as  marginal  notes ;  because  the  hlood  of 
God  is  a  very  extraordinary  expression.*  But  it  is  not  difficult 
to  point  out  the  mode  in  which  koZ  might  have  arisen  from 
xu^iov.  Transcribers  were  familiar  with  s-/.zXy}Sia  rov  diou, 
from  its  frequent  occurrence  in  the  New  Testament.  Hence 
they  would  prefer  the  more  known  expression  to  the  un- 
usual one. 

And  not  only  can  we  account  foi-  dsov  arising  from  zv^lo-j 
but  also  xptarov.  The  latter  is  obviously  an  interpretation  or 
gloss  intended  to  define  the  sense  of  the  ambiguous  term  -/.v^iog. 
But  if  the  authors  of  the  gloss  had  found  kov  in  their  Greek 
copies,  they  would  not  have  chosen  Xg/orou  to  explain  it,  but 
some  more  suitable  phrase,  probably  rou  uiov  roxj  koZ^  as  Gries- 
bach suggests. 

The  various  compound  readings  arose  from  the  combination 
*  Introfhictiou  to  the  New  Testament,  vol.  i.  pp.  334,  335. 


448  BIBLICAL   CRITICISM. 

.of  the  two  simple  ones  -/.v^lou  and  6fo^ ;  and  therefore  inter- 
nal evidence  is  clearly  against  them. 

It  has  been  conjectured  with  some  degree  of  probability  by 
Griesbach,  that  hou  was  taken  either  from  Paul's  epistles  or  a 
parallel  in  1  Peter  v.  2,  where  we  read  Toz/^avars  rh  h  IfLTv  volfiviov 
rnu  dsou,  s'XKf/.O'irovvTig,-  %.  r.  X. 

From  a  general  survey  of  the  evidence,  we  are  inclined  to 
adopt  ro\J  xuplou  as  the  most  probable  reading.  It  is  best 
supported  by  the  authority  of  documents,  as  well  as  internal 
considerations.  It  has  been  received  by  Grotius,  Wetstein, 
Griesbach,  Marsh,  Lachmann,Tischendorf,01shausen,  Kuinoel, 
Meyer,  De  Wette,  &c. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  received  reading  is  followed  by 
Mill,  Wolf,  Bengel,  Matthaei,  Rinck,  Michaelis,  Scholz,  &c. 
But  Scholz  should  consistently  have  edited  zupiou  %ai  &iov 
as  the  Constantinopolitan  form  of  the  text.  By  retaining 
rov  dsou  he  has  departed  from  his  own  principles. 


INDEX. 


I.    PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE   ILLUSTRATED  OR  EXPLAINED. 


Genesis  i.  I.  410-414. 

„  ii.  I.  414-415. 

„  ii.  24,  I.  415-417. 

„  iil  15,  I.  288. 

„  iv.  8,  I.  89,  419. 

„  X.  21,  I.  7,  8. 

„  X.  25,  I.  8. 

„  xi.  5,  I.  230. 

„  xiv.  13,  I.  6,  7. 

„  xiv.  14,  I.  90. 

„  XV.  4,  I.  230. 

Exodus  xii.  40,  I.  86. 

„       XX.  2-17,  I.  432-442. 
„       xxix.  35,  I.  230. 

Numbers  xxiv.  24,  I.  7,  8. 

Leviticus  ix.  21,  I.  372. 

Deuteronomy  vi.  5-21,  I.  432,  442. 

Joshua  xxi.  35,  I.  421-427. 

Judges  xviii.  30,  I.  408,  409. 

1  Samuel  vi.  19,  I.  401-404. 
„        xi.  14,  I.  78. 
„        xvii.  12-31,  I.  397,  400. 
„        xvii.  55  to  xviii.  5,  I,  401, 
xxi.  5,  I.  292. 


2  Samuel  xv.  7,  I.  429,  430. 
„        xxi.  1,  I.  295. 
„         xxii.  11,  12,  I.  302. 
„        xxiv.  13,  I.  299. 

1  Kings  vi.  1,  I.  380. 

„       xxii.  43,  I.  380. 

2  Kings  viii.  16,  I.  379, 

„       ix.  29,  I.  379. 
„        X.  1,  I.  379. 

1  Chronicles  xxi.  11,  I.  295. 

2  Chronicles  x.  16,  I.  372. 

„  xvii. -6,  I.  380. 

,,  XX.  33,  I.  380. 

'„  xxii.  2,  I.  409,  410. 

Nehemiah  viii.  8,  I.  225. 
„         xiii.  2,  4,  I.  225. 

Psalms  xvi.  1,  I.  394-397. 

„  xviii.  8,  I.  443. 

„  xxii,  17,  I.  404-408. 

„  XXV.  I.  389-393. 

„  xl.  7-9,  I.  312. 

„  xlviii.  15,  I.  67. 

„  Iv.  16,  I.  67. 

„  c.  3,  I.  373. 

„  cxlv.  I.  393-394. 


2  G 


450 

Proverbs  xviii.  22,  T.  480. 

Canticles  viii.  (J,  I.  131. 

Isaiah  ix.  2,  I.  372. 
„     xix.  8,  I.  444-446. 
„     xix.  18,  I.  8. 
„     XXV.  1,  I.  67. 
„     liii.  8,  I.  443-444. 
„     Iviii.  10,  I.  431. 

Jeremiah  li.  19,  I.  292-293. 

Amos  ix.  11,  12,  I.  312. 

Micah  V.  2,  I.  310,  311. 

Zechariah  ix.  9,  I.  313. 
„         xii.  10,  I.  417. 

Malachiiii.  1,  I.  311. 

Matthew  ii.  G,  I.  310-311. 
„        V.  8,  T.  30. 

vi.  13,  II.  427-432. 


INDEX. 


Matthew  ix.  36,  II.  377. 

„        xix.  17,  II.  432-437. 
„        xxi.  5,  II.  313. 
„        xxi.  28-31,  II.  434-436. 
„        xxvii.  35,  36,  II.  436, 437. 

Luke  xxii.  43,  44,  II.  437-439. 

Acts  viii.  37,  II.  439,  440. 
„    XV.  16,  17,  I.  312. 
„    XV.  20,  29,  II.  373. 
„    XX.  28,  II.  441-448. 
„    xxii.  25-28,  I.  311,  312. 

Romans  vii.  6,  II.  375. 
„        xi.  6,  II.  378. 

1  Corinthians  v.  8,  II.  165. 

„  XV.  29,  II.  373. 

1  Timothy,  iii.  16,  II.  382-402. 

1  John  V.  7,  II.  403-426. 

Revelation  xxii.  14,  IT.  378. 


II.   OF   AUTHORS   AND   SUBJECTS. 

Abbe  de  Camps,  II.  307. 

Abraham  Ben  Chayim's  Hebrew  Bible  referred  to,  I.  1 40. 

Abu  Said's  Arabic  Version  of  the  Pentateuch,  I.  258. 

Accents  in  the  Greek  Testament,  their  late  origin,  II.  16,  17. 

Adler,  N.   T.   Versiones  Syriacae  denuo  examinatae,   II.  165,   183,   189, 

192,  193,  194,  199,  200  ;  Biblisch-kritische  Reise,  I.  258,  362. 
j$]lian's  Varia  Historia  cited,  I.  165. 

Agapetus,  Deacon  of  Constantinople,  his  writings  referred  to,  11.  354. 
Age  of  the  Hebrew  language,  I.  13-18  ;  of  Hebrew  MSS.  341-342. 
Alcala,  the  library  of,  II.  107,  108. 

Alcimus,  Archbishop  of  Vienne,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  354. 
Alcuin's  revision  of  Jerome's  Latin  version,  I.  271. 
Aldine edition,  the,  of  the  LXX.  I.  212  ;  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  1 1  J, 

112. 


INDEX.  451 

Alexander's,  Professor,  Commentary  on  Isaiah  referred  to,  I.  75  ;  on  the 

Psalms,  395. 
Alexandrine  recension  of  the  text  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  72,  88. 
Alexandrinus,  Codex,  described,  II.  271-275. 
Alford's  Greek  Testament  referred  to,  II.  216. 

Alter,  Professor,  his  Greek  Testament  ii.  130  ;  on  the  Slavonic  version  239. 
Ambrosiaster,  (Hilary  the  deacon),  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  354. 
Ambrosius,  Bishop  of  Milan,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  354. 
Amersfoordt  quoted,  I.  213. 
Amiatinus,  Codex,  described,  II.  254,  255. 
Ammonian-Eusebian  sections,  the,  II.  17. 
Ammonius,  an  Alexandrine  writer,  II.  339. 
Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  II.  340,  341. 
Anastasius  Sinaita,  II.  348. 

Andreas,  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  348. 
Andreas,  Archbishop  of  Crete,  his  writings,  II.  349. 
Antiochus,  Bishop  of  Ptolemais  in  Phenicia,  his  writings,  II.  346. 
Antony,  an  Egyptian  Monk,  his  Opuscula,  II.  341. 
Antwerp  Polyglott,  the,  I.  145,  146  ;  II.  172. 
Apollinaris,  the  younger,  his  Commentaries,  II.  341. 
Apostolic  Canons,  the,  II.  339. 
Apostolic  Constitutions,  the,  II.  339. 

Apostolical  Fathers,  their  mode  of  quoting  the  New  Testament,  II.  44, 45. 
' AToSToXog,  6,  explained,  II.  32. 

Aquila,  his  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  I.  215-217. 
Arabic  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  I.  255-260. 
Arabic  versions  and  editions  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  222-229. 
Aramgean  language,  the,  I.  12. 

Archelaus,  a  Mesopotamian  bishop,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  339. 
Arethas,  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  his  works,  II.  351. 
Argenteus,  Codex,  described,  II.  232-234. 

Aristeas,  his  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint,  I.  166,  &c. 
Aristobulus,  his  testimony  respecting  the  Septuagint,  I.  163-164. 
Arius,  his  Letter  to  Eusebius  referred  to,  II.  341. 
Armenian  version  of  the  New  Testament,  the,  II.  215-220. 
Arnobius,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  355. 
Assemani,  J.  S.,  referred  to,  I.  243  ;  II.  164,  188,  195. 
Asterius  of  Cappadocia,  II.  341. 

Athanasius,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  340  ;  qvioted,  395,  442,  445. 
Athenagoras,  II.  338. 

Athias,  his  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  147. 
Aubert's  edition  of  Cyril,  II.  386. 
Augiensis,  Codex,  II.  298. 
Augustine,  on  the  early  Latin  version,  I.  262,  267  ;  II.  241,  243  ;  his 

works  referred  to,  355. 
Auriville's  Dissertationes  ad  Sacras  littcras  et  philol.  Orient,  pertinentes 

cited.  I.  396. 


452  INDEX. 

Autographs  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  II.  39-42. 
Aymon,  John,  referred  to,  II.  291. 

Baba  Bathra  quoted,  I.  104. 

Babylonian  Talmud  quoted,  I.  20,  21. 

Bacon,  Roger,  referred  to,  I.  272,  273. 

Bahrdt  referred  to,  I.  207. 

Baldwin  the  Jesuit  referred  to,  I.  280. 

Barberinian  Triglott  referred  to,  I,  258. 

Barcochab,  coins  restruck  by,  I.  35. 

Bardesanes  referred  to,  I.  245,  24(j. 

Bar  Hebraeus,  Gregory,  quoted,  I.  245,  251,  252  ;   11.  187,  216. 

Barnabas,  II.  42  ;  epistle  of,  337  ;  quoted,  389. 

Barrett,  Dr.,  of  Trin.  Col.  Dub.,  his  Fac-simile  of  the  Codex  Rescriptus 

Dublinensis  described,  II.  311-313. 
Basil,  Bishop  of  Seleucia,  his  Orations  referred  to,  II.  346. 
Basil,  the  great,  II.  341  ;  quoted,  389,  442. 
Bayer,  de  numis  Hebraeo-Samaritanis,  quoted,  I.  35. 
Bauer  referred  to,  I.  260. 
Bede,  his  Avritings  referred  to,  II.  355. 
Bellarmine's  Preface  to  the  Clementine  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  I.  278, 

279,  281. 
Bengel,  John  Albert,  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  123,  124; 

Introductio  ad  Crisin,  370 ;  Gnomon,  429,  430. 
Bentley,  I.  262  ;  quoted,  II.  257,  259. 
Benzelius,  Archb.  of  Upsal,  referred  to,  II.  231,  233. 
Bernstein  referred   to,   II.   187 ;    De  Charklensi  Nov.  Test,  translatione 

Syriaca  Commentatio,  188. 
Bertholdt's  Einleitung  referred  to,  II.  186. 

Beza's  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  115,  116  ;  referred  to,  306,  &c. 
Bible,  Hebrew,  the  first  printed  edition  of,  I.  140 ;  various  succeeding 

editions  of,  140-161. 
Biblical  Review,  II.  108. 
Bibliothecae  Barberinae,  Codex,  II.  311. 
Bibliotheca  Sacra  referred  to,  I.  408. 
Bibliotheca  Sussexiana,  by  Pettigrew,  I.  347. 

Birch,  his  edition  of  the  Four  Gospels,  II.  130,  276;  referred  to,  441. 
Blanchini  and  Hwid's  Specimen  ineditae  versionis  Arabico-Samaritanae 

Pentateuchi,  I.  259. 
Blanchini,  Evangeliarium    Quadruplex   latinae  versionis  antiquae   seu 

veteris  Italicae,  II.  242,  252,  253,  276,  296. 
Bobbiensis,  Codex,  II.  246,  247. 
Bochart,  quoted,  I.  402. 
Bode  referred  to,  II.  205. 

Boeder's  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  119. 
Boernerianus,  Codex,  II.  247. 
Bomberg's  Rabbinical  Bibles,  I.  121,  129,  131,  142,  143-145. 


INDEX.  453 

Boothroyd's  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  158,  159,  412,  413. 

Boreel,  John  Andrew,  referred  to,  II.  297. 

Boreeli,  Codex,  II.  296. 

Borgianus,  Codex,  II.  309. 

Bornemann's  Acta  Apostolorum  Luca  conscripta  ad  fidem  Codicis  Canta- 

brigiensis,  &c.  II.  288. 
Bosworth,  the  Rev.  F.,  I.  53. 
Bowring,  Dr.,  quoted,  II.,  107,  108. 
Bowyer's  Greek  Testament,  II.  127,  372. 
Breithaupt  referred  to,  I.  403. 
Brixianus,  Codex,  II.  245. 
Bruns  referred  to,  I.  318;  II.  172. 
Buchanan,  Dr.  C,  referred  to,  I.  369. 
Bukentop  the  monk,  I.  282. 

Bull,  the  Papal,  respecting  the  Latin  Vulgate,  I.  277. 
Bunsen,  quoted,  I.  14,  24,  78,  87. 
Bui-gess,  Bishop,  referred  to,  II.  407,  425. 
Burton's  Testimonies  of  the  AnteNicene  Fathers  to   the  Divinity  of 

Christ,  II.  445. 
Buxtorf  the  younger,  on  the  Hebrew  characters,  I.  22 ;  De  Punctorum 

&c.  in  libris  V.  T.  oi'igine,  53. 
Buxtorf,  the  elder,  his  Tiberias,  I.  104,  116;  his  Hebrew  and  Rabbinical 

Bibles,  146,  147. 

\ 
Caesareus  Vindobonensis,  Codex,  II.  307. 

Caesarius  of  Aries,  his  wiutings  referred  to,  II.  355. 

Caesarius,  brother  of  G.  Nazianzenus,  his  dialogues  referred  to,  II,  341 ; 

quoted,  429. 
Calecas,  Manuel,  quoted,  II.  423. 
Calligraphical  and  tachygi-aphical  writing,  I.  28,  29. 
Calvin,  quoted,  II.  427,  428. 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  I.  103-108. 
Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  30-38. 
Canons  or  rules  of  Criticism,  I.  386-387  ;  II.  374-381. 
Cantabrigiensis  or  Bezae,  Codex,  II.  246,  285-288. 
Cappellus,  his  Arcanum  Punctationis  revelatum,  I.  53 ;    Critica  Sacra, 

116,  117,  125,  297,  299. 
Carlyle,  Prof.,  referred  to,  II.  228. 
Carpzov  quoted,  I.  420. 
Cassian,  his  writings,  referred  to,  II.  355. 
Cassiodorus,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  356;  quoted,  417. 
Castell,  referred  to,  II.  223,  226. 
Cedrenus,  George,  his  Chronicle  referred  to,  II.  351. 
Chapters,  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  origin  of,  I.  60. 
Chapters  and  Verses  in  the  Greek  Testament,  their  origin,  II.  21. 
Charlemagne  referred  to,  I.  270. 


454  INDEX. 

Chayim,  Rabbi  Ben,  referred  to,  I.  142,  144,  427. 

Chifflet's  Vigilii  Tapsensis  Vindiciae,  referred  to,  II.  418. 

China,  account  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  found  in,  I.  367-369. 

Chromatius,  Bishop  of  Aquileia,  II.  356. 

Chrysocephalus,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  353. 

Chrysostom  quoted,  I.  6,  7  ;  II.  202,  215,  388,  442  ;  his  works  generally, 

345. 
Cilicisms,  the  supposed,  of  Paul's  writings,  II.  11. 
Clarke,  Dr.  Adam,  referred  to,  II.  408. 
Claromontanus,  Codex,  II.  245,  288-292. 
Classification  of  Hebrew  MSS.  I.  344,  345  ;  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Greek 

Testament,  II.  88-105. 
Claudius,  Bishop  of  Turin,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  356. 
Clementine  and  Sixtine  editions  of  the  Vulgate,  the,  I.  278-283, 
Clement  of  Alexandria  referred  to,  II.  19,  46  ;  his  writings,  338  ;  quoted, 

387. 
Clement  of  Rome,  referred  to,  II.  42,  335. 
Codices,  Latin,  II.  244-248,  255,  256;  Greek,  271-327. 
Coin-writing,  Jewish,  I.  23,  25. 
Coislinianus,  Codex,  II.  297,  302. 
Colbertinus,  Codex,  II.  246. 

Coleman,  the  Rev.  Mr.,  of  Ventnor,  referred  to,  I.  369. 
Colinocus,  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  112. 
Columbanus,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  356. 
Complutensian  Polyglott,  referred  to  or  described,  I.  141,  142,  211  ;  the 

Greek  Testament  in  the,  II.  106,  107,  420. 
Constantinopolitan  Recension  of  the  Text  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  73, 

89. 
Corbejensis,  Codex,  II.  245,  247. 
Correctoria  or  Epanorthotae,  what,  I.  272,  273. 
Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  referred  to,  II.  195  ;  his  writings,  349. 
Cramer's  Beitrage  referred  to,  II.  208. 
Credner,  De  Prophetarum  Minoi'um  Versionis  Syriacae  quam  Peschito 

Vocant  indole,  I.  249. 
Critical  application  of  ancient  versions,  I.  285-293. 
Critical  conjecture,  its  use,  I.    374-381  ;  II.  371-383. 
Critical  rules  for  determining  various  readings,  II.  374-381. 
C'thibs  and  k'ris,  what,  I.  122-124. 
C'thib  v'lo  k'ri,  what,  I.  125. 

Cui'cellaevis,  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Text,  II.  119. 
Cureton's  edition  of  the  Syriac  Gospels,  II.  431 
Cursive  MSS.  II.  262  ;  described,  318-324. 
Custodes  linearum,  I.  67,  68. 

Cyprian,  quoted,  II.  59,  60,  412,  413  ;  his  writings,  356. 
Cyprius,  Codex,  II.  304. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  II.  346  ;  quoted,  385,  386. 


INDEX.  455 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  341. 
Cyril  and  Methodius,  translators  of  the  Slavonic  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  II.  238. 

D'Allemand,  Judah,  revised  Van  der  Hooght's  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  159. 

Dathe  referred  to,  I.  247. 

Davidson's  Sacred  Ilermeneutics,  I.  399,  419. 

De  Dieu  referred  to,  II.  174. 

Demetrius  Phalereus,  I.  164-166. 

Demidovianus,  Codex,  II.  256. 

Derrer,  his  transcript  of  the  Gothic  version  from  the  Codex  Argenteus 

II.  230. 
De  Rossi,   his  Annales  Hebraeo-typographici,  and  de  Hebraicae  typo- 

graphiae  origine,  &c.  I.  138,  139,  140,  141  ;  de  ignotis  nonnullis 

antiquissimis    Hebr.   text,   editionibus,   139  ;    his    Scholia  Critica 

on  the  Hebrew  Bible,  155-157,  397,  428. 
De  Sacy's  Memoire  sur  I'etat  actuel  des  Samaritains,  I.  242. 
De  Wette's  Einleitungen,  I.  119  ;  11.  19,  159,  162,  235. 
Diadochus  of  Photice,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  347. 
Dialect,  the  New  Testament,  II.  2-19. 
Dialects  of  the  Hebrew  language,  I.  18,  19. 

Didymus  of  Alexandria,  his  writings,  II.  341,  342  ;  quoted,  389,  394 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  quoted,  I.  6  ;  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  342. 
Diognetus,  the  Epistle  to,  quoted,  II.  389. 
Dionysius  Bar  Salibi,  referred  to,  II.  195. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  his  writings,  II.  339  ;  quoted,  393. 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  quoted,  II.  46. 
Dobrovsky's  Slavanca,  II.  239,  240. 

Documents  of  the  Greek  Testament,  classification  of,  II.  88-105. 
Doederlein  and  Meisner's  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  158. 
Dorotheus  of  Tyre,  his  works  referred  to,  II.  342. 
Dublinensis,  Codex,  II.  311-313. 

Eber  referred  to,  I.  8. 

Ecclesiastical  element  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  11,  12. 

Eckhel's  Doctrina  Numorum  Veterum,  I.  35. 

Egyptian  Versions  of  the  New  Testament,  TI.  206-214. 

Eichhorn's  Einleitungen,  I.   130,  132,  211,   &c.  ;  II.   54,  55,   161,  20.5, 

207,  217,  218. 
Elias  of  Crete,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  350. 
Elzevir  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  117. 
Emmerami,  Codex,  II.  256, 
Engelbreth  referred  to,  II.  213. 
Enneapla,  the,  of  Origen,  I.  204. 
Ephraem,  the  Syrian,  referred  to,  I.  244,  248   251  ;  II.  153  ;  his  writings, 

342. 


456  INDEX. 

Ephraemi,  Codex,  described,  II.  281-285. 

Epiphanius  on  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint,  I.  168  ;  refen-ed  to  or  quoted, 

217  ;  II.  49,  50,  438  ;  his  writings  referred  to,  342. 
Epiphanius  Scholasticus,  his  writings,  II.  356. 
Erasmus,  his  Greek  Testament,  various  editions  of,  II.  108-110;  referred 

419,  420. 
Erpenius,  his  edition  of  the  Arabic  Pentateuch,  I.  257  ;  of  the  Arabic 

version  of  the  Gospels,  II.  223,  225. 
Estienne,  Robert  (Stephens),  his  editions  of  the  Vulgate,  I.  274. 
Estrangelo,  meaning  of  the  term,  I.  243. 
Ethiopia  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  202-206. 
'EvayysXiov,  what,  II.  32. 
Eucherius,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  356  ;  quoted,  414, 

415. 
Eugenius,  Confession  drawn  up  by,  II.  416. 
Eulogius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  his  writings,  II,  349. 
Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Csesarea,  his  works,  II.  342,  343. 
Eusebius,  Bisho])  of  Emesa,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  343. 
Eustathius,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  II.  343. 
Euthalius  referred  to,  II.  19 ;  his  writings,  346,  394. 
Eutherius  of  Tyanea,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  346. 
Euthymius  Zygabenus,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  352,  429. 
Evagrius,  the  Nitrian  Monk,  referred  to,  II.  343. 
Evangeliarium,  what,  II.  20. 
Ewald's  Ausfiihrliches  Lehrbuch  der  Hebraischen  Sprache,  I.  15,  31,  43, 

44  ;  on  the  Assyrian-Hebrew  Vocalisation,  45,  46. 
Eznak,  author  of  the  Armenian  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  215. 

Fabricius,   Guido,  his   edition  of  the  Peshito  Syriac  New  Testament, 

II.  172. 
Fac-similes  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  obtained  at  the  Synagogue  of  K'ae- 

fung-foo  referred  to,  I.  368. 
Facundus,  an  African  Bishop,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  357,  413,  414. 
Fagi,  referred  to,  I.  231. 
Fastidius,  a  British  Bishop,  II.  356. 
Fathers,  and  other  early  Christian  writers  who  have  quoted  the  New 

Testament,  Greek,  II.  335-353  ;  Latin,  354-362. 
Faustinus,  Presbyter  of  Rome,  his  writings,  II.  357. 
Faustus,  the  Manichaean,  his  works,  II.  357. 
Fell,  Bishop,  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Text,  II.  119,  120. 
Flaminius  Nobilius  referred  to,  I.  263. 
Fleck,  II.  284. 
Ford's  Appendix  ad  editionem  Novi  Testamenti  Graeci  e  Codice  MS. 

Alexandrino  a  Car.  God.  Woide  descripti,  &c.  II.  279. 
Forojuliensis,  Codex,  II.  256. 
Fossatensis,  Codex,  II.  256. 


INDEX.  457 

Frankel's  Vorstudien  zu  der  Septuaginta  referred  to,   I.  HI,  177,  179, 

187,  198,  199,  ct  al. 
Frommanni  Opuscula   I.  314. 
Frumentius  referred  to,  II.  203. 
Fuldensis,  Codex,  II.  255. 
Fulgentius,  Bishop  of  Ruspe,  his  writings,  II.  357 ;  quoted,  414,  415, 

416. 

Gabelentz,  H.  C.  de,  editor  of  the  Gothic  version  of  the  New  Testament, 

II.  232,  236. 
Gabler  referred  to,  II.  441. 
Gabriel  Sionita,  I.  253  ;  his  edition  of  the  Arabic  version  of  the  Gospels, 

II.  223. 
Gallandii  Bibliotheca  referred  to,  II.  343,  344,  345,  et  al. 
Gardie,  Count  de  la,  referred  to,  II.  233. 
Gatiani,  Codex,  II.  256. 

Gaudentius,  Bishop  of  Brescia,  his  writings,  II.  357. 
Geddes  referred  to,  I.  413,  414,  415. 
Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  his  writings,  II.  346. 
Gelasius,  Pope,  the  Council  held  under  him,  quoted,  II.  77. 
Gemaras,  the  two,  I.  115,  315. 
Genealogies,  antediluvian    and  postdiluvian,  according  to  the  Hebrew, 

Samaritan,  and  Septuagint  Pentateuch,  I.  85. 
Gennadius  referred  to,  II.  346. 
Georgi,  II.  207,  208,  213,  309. 
Georgian  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  221. 
Gerhard  of  Maestricht,  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  122. 
Gerson's  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  141. 
Gesenius,    his    Hebrew    Grammar,    I.    8,    12  ;    Geschichte   der   Heb. 

Sprache  und    Schrift,  9,  13,  14,  225  ;    on  the   change  of  Hebrew 

characters,  22,  23, 30  ;  De  Pentateuchi  Samaritani  origine,  indole,  et 

auctoritate,  79,  94,  95,  186,  et  al ;  Lehrgebaude,  119  ;  Commeutar 

ueber  den  Jesaia,  233. 
Gieseler's  Ecclesiastical  History,  II.  343. 
Gildas  referred  to,  II.  357. 
Gill,  Dr.  John,  I.  315. 

Glycas,  a  Byzantine  Historian,  his  writings,  II.  352. 
Golden  and  Silver  Ages  of  the  Hebrew  language,  I.  16-18. 
Gothic  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  the,  II.  230-237. 
Gcttschalk,  II.  301. 
Grabe,  his  edition  of  the  LXX.,  I.  212. 

Grammatical  peculiarities  of  the  New  Testament  dialect,  II.  9. 
Greenfield's  edition  of  the  Peshito  Syriac  New  Testament,  II.  181-183. 
Gregorius  Palamas,  his  writings,  II.  353. 
Gregory  Bar  Hebraeus  cited,  I.  245,  251,  252. 
Gregory  the  Great,  Pope,  referred  to,  I.  269  ;  his  writings,  II.  357. 


458  INDEX. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  his  writings,  II.  342. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  his  writings,  II.  342  ;  quoted,  389,  396,  428. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  his  writings,  II.  340  ;  quoted,  39(5. 

Griesbach,  his  Opuscula  Academica  referred  to,  II.  40,  41  ;  system  of 
recensions,  72-75  ;  editions  of  his  Greek  Testament,  127-128,  131, 
132,  133,  134  ;  Symbolje  Critical,  128,  295,  299,  305  ;  Dissert,  crit. 
de  cod.  quat.  evang.  orig.  368,  369 ;  Commentarius  Criticus,  II.  434. 

Grinfield's  Apology  for  the  LXX.,  I.  194,  195. 

Grotius  quoted,  I.  6. 

Guelpherbytanus,  Codex  of  the  Latin  version,  II.  247. 

Guelpherbytani,  Codices,  Gi-eek,  II.  308. 

Gutbier's  edition  of  the  Peshito  Syr.  New  Testament,  II.  175. 

Hagiographa,  Targums  on  the,  I.  237,  238. 

Hahn's  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  159  ;  Das  Evangelium  Marcion's 

u.  s.  w.,  II.  336. 
Hai,  Rabbi,  referred  to,  I.  426. 
Haitho,  King  of  Armenia,  referred  to,  II.  216,  217. 
Hamilton's  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  I.  191. 
Haphtaroth,  the,  I.  59. 
Harclea,  or  Ilarkel,  Thomas  of,  his  revision  of  the  Philoxenian  version  of 

the  New  Testament,  II.  186-190. 
Harwood's  Greek  Testament,  II.  128,  373. 
Harlejauus,  Codex,  II.  256. 
Hassencamp's  commcntatio   philologica-critica,    de   Pentateucho  LXX. 

interpretum  graeco,  non  ex  Hebraeo  sed.  Samaritano  textu  converso, 

referred  to,  I.  184. 
Havemann's  Wegeleuchte  wieder  die  Jiidische  Finsternissen,  I.  228. 
Havernick,  his  Eiuleitung  referred  to,  I.  7,  13,  104. 
Hebraisms  in  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  9-11. 
Hebrew,  meaning  of  the  term,  I.  6-9  ;  when  first  used,  9. 
Hebrew  characters,  I.  20-36. 
Hebrew  language,  I.  6-19. 
Hebrew  MSS.  ;  Synagogue  Rolls,  I.  321-324  ;  private,  324-336  ;  country, 

age,  goodness,  &c.,  336-344  ;  classification  of,  344  ;   in  Rabbinical 

characters,  345  ;  description  of  several,  346-365  ;  in  China,  366-370  ; 

application  to  criticism,  370-373. 
Hebrew  vowels,  I.  37-55. 
Henderson,  Dr.,  quoted,  II.  384,  390,  392. 
Hengstenberg's   Commentary  on  the  Psalms  quoted,  I.  74,  302,  391  ; 

Dissertations  on  the  Pentateuch,  100,  104,  225  ;   Christologie,  397. 
Hentenius,  John,  his  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  I.  274. 
Heracleon  the  Valentinian  referred  to,  II.  336. 
Herbst's    Historisch-kritischc   Eiuleitung,  &c.  I.  31,  77,  98,  103,  249, 

ei  al. 
Ilcringa,  Professor,  referred  to,  II.  297. 


INDEX.  459 

Ilesychius,  referred  to,  I.  208  ;  his  recension  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II. 
76-78  ;  his  writings  referred  to,  343. 

Hexapla,  the,  of  Origen  described,  I.  202-203. 

Hieronymus,  see  Jerome. 

Hilary,  Bishop  of  Poitiers,  his  writings,  II.  358,  438. 

Hincmar,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  his  writings,  II.  358. 

Hippolytus  of  Antioch,  his  writings,  II.  340  ;  quoted  395. 

Hirt's  Oriental,  und  Exegetisch.  Bibliothek,  II.  169. 

Hirzel,  De  Pentateuchi  Versionis  Syricae  quam  Peschito  vocaut  indole, 
I.  247,  249. 

History  of  the  Text  of  the  Old  Testament,  I.  56-161. 

History  of  the  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  13-149. 

Hody,  De  Bibliorum  textibus,  &c.  I.  164,  174,  177,  178. 

HoiFmann's  Grammatica  Syriaca,  I.  244. 

Holmes's  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  I.  201,  213. 

Hopfner's  Exegetisches  Handbvich,  I.  402. 

Home,  T.  H.,  referred  to,  I.  270. 

Horsley's  Biblical  Criticism,  I.  399. 

Houbigant's  (C.  F.),  his  Hebrew  Bible,  1. 149-150  ;  referred  to,  304,  305. 

Hug,  his  Einleitung,  I.  246  ;  II.  65,  113,  153,  155,  164,  200,  204,  207, 
234 ;  on  the  Clementine  and  Sixtine  editions  of  the  Vulgate,  I. 
279  ;  De  Antiquitate  Codicis  Vaticani,  II.  276. 

Hugo,  A.  St.  Caro,  I.  272. 

Hunerich,  King  of  the  Vandals,  referred  to,  II.  416. 

Hupfeld,  Studien  und  Kritiken,  I.  24  ;  Hebraische  Grammatik,  I.  27,  42. 

Hurwitz,  revised  Van  der  Hooght's  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  159. 

Hutter,  Elias,  his  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  146  ;  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  twelve  languages,  II.  173. 

Ibas,  quoted,  II.  443,  444. 

Ibrahim  of  Haleb,  referred  to,  I.  255. 

Ignatius,  referred  to  or  quoted,  II.  40,  42,  336,  395. 

Ignatius,  Patriarch  of  the  Maronites,  II.  167. 

Ihre,  John,  referred  to,  II.  231,  233. 

Ingoldstadiensis,  Codex,  II.  256. 

Irenaeus  on  the  Hebrew  letters,  I.  33  ;  respecting  Aquila,  217;  his  works 

referred  to,  II.  335,  336,  quoted,  46. 
Isaac,  the  Armenian  Patriarch,  referred  to,  II.  215. 
Isidore  Clarius,  his  edition  of  the  Latin  Bible,  I.  276. 
Isidore  of  Pelusium,  his  writings,  II.  346. 
Isidore  of  Seville,  quoted,  I.  270. 
Itala  Vetus,  the,  I.  261-264  ;  II.  243. 

Jablonski's  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  148. 
Jacob  Ben  Chayim,  I.  121,  129,  132. 
Jacob  of  Edessa  referred  to,  I.  245. 


460  INDEX. 

Jacob,  Rabbi,  son  of  Tawus,  his  Persian  version  of  the  Pentateuch,  I.  260. 
Jacobus  of  Nisibis,  his  writings,  II.  358. 

Jahn's  Hebrew  Bible,  referred  to,  I.  84  ;  described,  158  ;  Hebrew  Com- 
monwealth, 106  ;  Einleitvmg,  57. 
James's  Bellum  Papale,  I.  278,  280. 
Jarchi,  referred  to,  I.  317. 

Jerome,  on  the  changes  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  I.  21  ;  on  Hebrew  vocaliza- 
tion in  his  day,  50-52  ;  on  the  alleged  falsification  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures   by  the  Jews,   70  ;    on  the   Septuagint,   181,   202  ;    on 
Aquila's  version,  216,  219  ;  on  the  Latin  versions  of  his  time,  262, 
264,  265,  266,  267  ;  his  own  version,  264,  270  ;  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment mode  of  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament,  310  ;  on  the  sup- 
posed Cilicisms  in  Paul's  writings,  II.  11  ;  charge  against  Marcion, 
49  ;  revision  of  the  old  Latin,  249  ;  his  writings  generally,  357, 
358  ;  quoted  or  referred  to,  77,  97,  241,  249,  250,  251,  438. 
Jerusalem  Targum,  the,  I.  236. 
Jesudad,  B.  Von  Hadath,  referred  to,  I.  245. 
Jesus,  the  Son  of  Sirach,  I.  106 ;  his  supposed  testimony  to  the  LXX,, 

166. 
Jewish  element  in  the  diction  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  9-11. 
Jews  at  K'ae-fung-foo  the,  I.  368. 
Johannes  Damascenus,  his  works,  II.  350. 
John,  Bishop  of  Seville,  referred  to,  II.  224. 
Jonathan,  the  Targum  of,  I.  232  ;  the  Pseudo-Jonathan,  234. 
Josephus  referred  to,  I.  104,  105,  167. 
Jost's  Geschichte  der  Israeliten  referred  to,  I.  256. 
Julius  Firmicus  Maternus,  his  writings,  II.  357. 

Junius,  Francis,  his  edition  of  the  Gothic  version  of  the  Gospels,  II.  230. 
Justin  Martyr  on  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint,  I.  168,  195  ;  his  mode  of 

quoting  the  New  Testament,  II.  44  ;  his  writings,  335. 
Justinian  quoted,  I.  196. 
Justiniani,  on  Psalm  xxii.  17,  quoted,  I.  407. 
Juvencus  of  Spain,  his  writings,  II.  358. 

Juynboll's  Commentarii  in  historiam  gentis  Samaritani  referred  to,  I.  96  ; 
Letterkiindige  Bijdragen,  II.  224. 

Kalkar,  referred  to,  I.  96. 

Karkaphensian  recension  of  the  Peshito,  I.  252. 

Karshuni  New  Testament,  the,  II.  224,  226. 

Kaye,  Bishop,  his  history  of  the  2d  and  3d  centuries,  II.  411. 

Kennicott  referred  to,  I.  107,  133,  139  ;  his  Hebrew  Bible,  152-155  ; 
Dissertations  on  the  state  of  the  printed  Hebrew  text,  107,  133, 
139,  398,  399,  410,  412,  430  ;  dissertatio  generalis,  136,  140  ;  his 
ten  annual  accounts,  140. 

Ke(pdAaia,  II.  17. 

Kidd's  Tracts,  &c.  of  Porson,  II.  402. 


INDEX.  461 

Kimchi  referred  to,  I.  317,  427. 

Kipling  referred  to,  11.  286,  287,  288. 

Kirsch's  reprint  of  the  Syriac  Pentateuch,  I.  254. 

Kitto's  Cyclopajdia  of  Biblical  Literature  referred  to,  II.  22  ;  Journal  of 

Sacred  Literature,  142,  144,  319,  323. 
Knittel,  F.  A.,  referred  to,  II.  231,  308. 
Knobel's  Der  Prophet  Jesaia,  I.  443. 
Kopitar  on  the  Slavic  language,  II.  238. 
Kopp  on  the  change  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  I.  23,  24. 
K'ris  and  c'thibs,  I.  122-124. 
K'ri,  v'lo  c'thib,  I.  125. 
Kuinoel  referred  to,  II.  441. 
Kiister,  Ludolph,  his  edition  of  Mill's  Greek  Testament,  II.  122,  301. 

Lachmann  referred  to,  II.  103, 104  ;  his  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament, 

139,  143,  243. 
La  Croze's  Thesaurus,  II.  218. 
Lactantius,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  358. 
Lanfranc,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  referred  to,  I.  272. 
Language,  Hebrew,  nature  of  the,  I.  6-19. 
Language  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  1-12. 
Latin,  see  versions  and  MSS. 
Laudianus,  Codex,  II.  246,  293. 

Laurence  referred  to,  II.  75,  103  ;  on  1  John  v.  7,  384,  385,  391. 
Lectionarium,  what,  II.  20. 
Lee,  Prof.,  his  Prolegomena  in  Biblia  Polyglotta,  I.  187  ;  quoted,  253, 

254;  II.  165,  176,  178,  179,  226;  his  edition  of  the  Syriac  Old 

Testament,  I.  253,  254  ;  his  Syriac  Testament,  II.  178-181. 
Lee,  Archbishop  of  York,  II.  419. 

Le  Fevre,  his  edition  of  the  Peshito  New  Testament,  II.  173. 
Le  Long's  Bibliotheca,  quoted,  I.  150,  159  ;  referred  to,  II.  113. 
Leo  the  Great,  Pope,  his  writings,  II.  358. 
Leontius  of  Byzantium,  his  writings,  II.  349. 
Lexical  peculiarities  of  the  New  Testament  dialect,  II.  7-9. 
Liberatus,  Archdeacon  of  Carthage,  his  writings,  II.  359. 
Lindanus  referred  to,  I.  272. 
Loebe,  Dr.  J.,  his  edition  of  the  Gothic  version  of  the  New  Testament, 

II.  232,  236. 
Loescher,  De  Causis  linguae  Hebraeae,  I.  22  ;  referred  to,  13. 
Loehlein,  his  Syrus  Epistolae  ad  Ephesios  iuterpres  referred  to,  II,  159, 

166,  167. 
Lorsbach  referred  to,  I.  260. 
Lowth,  Bishop,  referred  to,  I.  304,  305. 
Lucian,  Presb.  of  Antioch,  referred  to,  I.  207  ;  recension  of  the  Greek 

Testament,  II.  76,  78,  79. 
Lucifer,  Bishop  of  Cagliari,  his  writings,  II.  359. 


462  INDEX. 

Ludolph's  Historia  ^Ethiopica,  and  Commentarius  in  histor.  -lEthiop., 

II.  203,  205. 
Luther  omits  1  John  v.  7  in  his  version  ;  II.  406. 
Luxoviensis,  Codex,  II.  256. 
Luzzatto,  S.   D.,  referred  to,   I.  46  ;    his  Philoxenus,  sive  de  Onkelosi 

Chaldaica    Pentateuchi   versione   dissertatio   hermeneutico-critica, 

231. 
Macarius,  an  Egyptian  Monk,  his  writings,  II.  343. 
Mace,  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  123. 
Macedonius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  his  writings,  II.  349  ;  referred  to, 

389,  395. 
Madden's  (Sir  F.),  Alcuine's  Bible  in  the  British  Museum,  referred  to, 

I.  272. 
Mai,  Cardinal  Angelo,  referred  to,  II,  231,  245,  280. 
Maimonides  quoted,  I.  226  ;  referred  to,  317,  318. 
Marchand,  Prosper,  referred  to,  I.  280. 
Marcion  referred  to,  II.  31,  32  ;  charged  with  corrupting  the  sacred  text 

of  the  New  Testament,  47-53  ;  his  works,  336. 
Marcus  Diadochus,  his  writings,  II.  346. 
Marsh,  Bishop,  his  Lectures  on  the  Criticism,  &c.  of  the  New  Testament, 

referred  to,  I.  271  ;  II.  418,   419  ;  his  edition  of  Michaelis,   II.  19, 

81,  150,  170,  175,  226,  286. 
Marshall,  Thomas,  referred  to,  II.  230. 
Martin  the  First,  Bishop  of  Rome,  his  works,  II.  359. 
Masch's  Le  Long  referred  to,  I.  150,  159. 
Masorah,  what,  I.  119-128;  value  of,  128. 
Masoretes,  who,  I.  120,  126. 
Matthaei,  Ueber  die  sogenannten    Recensionen  welche   der    Herr  Abt. 

Bengel,  &c.  II.  85  ;  his  Greek  Testament,  129,  130. 
Maurer's  Commentarius  Criticus  quoted,  I.  402. 
Maximus  of  Chrysopolis,  his  writings,  "11.  349. 
Maximus,  Bishop  of  Turin,  his  Homilies  referred  to,  II.  359. 
Meletius  of  Antioch,  his  writings,  II.  344. 
Melito,  referred  to,  I.  246. 

Memphitic  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  209-214. 
Menachem  de  Lonzano,  Rabbi,  his  critical  labours  on  the  Pentateuch,  I. 

152. 
Menologium,  what,  II.  20. 
Mercator,  Marius,  his  works,  II.  359. 
Metaphrastes,  Simeon,  referred  to,  II.  234. 
Methodius,  Bishop  of  Tyre,  referred  to,  II.  340. 
Meyer  Hallevi  of  Toledo,  referred  to,  I.  136. 
Michaelis,  C.  B.  De  Variis  N.  T.  lectionibus,  II.  204,  370. 
Michaelis,  J.  H.,  his  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  150. 
Michaelis,  Sir  J.  D.,  his  Introduction,  I.  246  ;  II.  80,  81,  447  ;  Curae  in 

versionem  Syriacam  Actuum  Apostolorum,  161,  163,  167. 


INDEX.  468 

Michael  Pseliiis,  Senator  of  Constantinople,  his  writings,  II.  351. 

Middleton  ou  the  Greek  Article,  referred  to,  II.  425. 

Miesrob,  II.  215. 

Mill,  II.  110  ;  his  Greek  Testament,  121,  122,  252. 

Mingarelli  referred  to,  II.  208. 

Mishna,  the,  I.  115. 

Moldenhaiier  referred  to,  II.  108,  130. 

Monaceusis,  Codex,  II.  310. 

Montfaucon,  his  edition  of  the  Ilexapla,  I.  205,  207,  218  ;  Palceographia 
Graeca,  II.  264,  266,  267  ;  Bibliotheca  Bibliothecarum,  276. 

Monthly  Repository  referred  to,  II.  107. 

Morin,  S.  De  Lingua  Primeva,  quoted,  I.  13,  22  ;  John,  his  opinion  of  the 
Vulgate,  283 ;  Exercitationes  in  Utrumque  Samarit.  Pentateuch,  362. 

Moses  Ben  Simeon's  Rabbinical  Bible,  I.  147. 

Moses  of  Chorene,  or  Chorenensis,  referred  to,  1. 246  ;  Historia  Armeniaca, 
II.  215. 

Moses  of  Mardin  referred  to,  II.  167,  170. 

Mosquenses,  Codd.  II.  307,  309. 

MSS.  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  ;  Synagogue  copies,  321-324  ;  jirivate, 
324  ;  character  of  the  letters  of,  326  ;  country  of,  337-340;  the  age 
of,  341-343  ;  goodness,  343  ;  classification  of,  344-345  ;  in  Rabbini- 
cal characters,  345  ;  description  of  several,  346-362  ;  found  in 
China,  366-370  ;  observations  on,  370-373. 

MSS.  Samaritan,  I.  362-365. 

MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testament,  division  and  materials  of,  II.  262-270  ; 
Uncial,  271-317;  Cursive,  318-324;  Evangelistaria  and  lectionaria, 
325-327  ;  observations  on,  328-334  ;  classification  of,  88-105. 

MSS.  of  the  Latin  version,  II.  244-248. 

Munster,  Sebastian,  his  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  147. 

Miinter  referred  to,  II.  208,  210,  211  ;  Fragmenta  versionis  antiquae 
latinae  ante-Hieronym.  Prophetarum,  &c.  I.  264. 

Muralt's  Greek  Testament,  II.  145  ;  240  ;  Catalog.  Codd.  Bibliothecae 
Imperialis  publicae  Grace,  et  Lat.  296. 

Mutinensis,  Codex,  II.  302. 

Nanianus,  Codex,  II.  309. 

Neapolitanus,  Codex,  II.  308. 

Nesjulamam  referred  to,  II.  225. 

Nestorius  of  Constantinople,  his  writings,  II.  347  ;  quoted,  389. 

New  Testament,  the  language  of,  II.  1-12. 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  on  1  John  v.  7 ;  II.  426. 

Nicolaus,  Cardinal,  referred  to,  I.  272. 

Nicholson,  Dr.,  quoted,  I.  10,  14. 

Nilus  of  Constantinople,  his  writings,  II.  347. 

Nissel's  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  146, 

Nonnus  of  Egypt,  his  works,  II.  347. 


464  INDEX. 

Nortou,  Andrews,  on  the   pure   transmission   of  the  text  of  the  New 

Testament,  II.  148-149. 
Norzi,  Salomon,  his  critical  commentary  on  the  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  151,  409. 
Novatian,  a  Presbyter  of  Rome,  his  writings,  II.  359. 

Observations  on  the  use  of  ancient  versions,  II.  258-261  ;  on  quotations 
from  the  New  Testament  in  early  Christian  writers,  362-370. 

Occidental  recension  of  the  Greek  Text,  II.  72. 

Odessa  MSS.,  the,  I.  357. 

'O  'E/3ga7oc,  what,  I.  221. 

QlJcumenius,  his  writings,  II.  351. 

Old  Testament  Books,  their  age,  I.  15  ;  history  of  the  text  of,  external 
form,  56-63  ;  of  the  text  itself  till  the  close  of  the  canon,  64-108  ; 
till  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  109-111  ;  till  the  establishment  of 
the  Masoretic  text,  112-134  ;  till  part  of  the  Bible  first  appeared  in 
print,  135,  136  ;  of  the  printed  test,  137-161  ;  division  and  number 
of  books,  56  ;  divisions  in  the  text,  63. 

Onkelos,  the  Targum  of,  I.  229-231. 

Opitius,  his  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  148. 

Optatus,  Bishop  of  Milevi,  his  writings,  II.  360. 

Oriental  Christian  Spectator  referred  to,  I.  255. 

Origen  on  the  change  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  I.  21  ;  Epist.  ad  Africanum, 
200  ;  Tetrapla,  201 ;  Hexapla,  Octapla,  and  Enueapla,  202  ;  blames 
Marcion,  II.  51  ;  on  the  corruption  of  the  New  Testament  text,  61  ; 
various  readings  of  the  N.  T.  in  his  writings,  62-64  ;  his  recension 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  76,  78,  79  ;  quotations  from  the  N.  Test, 
in  his  writings,  338,  339  ;  quoted,  387. 

Orosius,  a  Spanish  presbyter,  his  writings,  II.  360. 

Osiander,  Luke,  his  edition  of  the  Latin  Bible,  I.  275. 

Owen,  Dr.  Henry,  his  enquiry  into  the  present  state  of  the  Septuagint, 
I.  198,  218  ;  modes  of  quotation  used  by  the  evangelical  writers, 
&c.,  311,  417. 

Pacian,  Bishop  of  Barcelona,  his  writings,  II.  360. 

Pagninus  referred  to,  I.  63. 

Palatinus  Vindobonensis,  Codex,  II.  245. 

Pamphilus  of  Caesarea,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  344. 

Parallels  or  repeated  passages  of  Scripture,  I.  294-307. 

Paris  Polyglott,  the  Peshito  in,  II.  174. 

Parshioth,  I.  59. 

Parsons'  and  Holmes'  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  I.  213. 

Paschal  Chronicle,  the,  referred  to,  II.  350. 

Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Aquileia,  his  works,  II.  360. 

Paulus,  his  edition  of  Saadias'  Arabic  translation  of  Isaiah  I.  256. 

Peculiarities  of  the  Greek  diction  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  7-9. 

Pelagius,  his  works  referred  to,  II.  360. 


INDEX.  465 

Piatt,  T.  P.,  his  edition  of  the  ^thiopic  New  Testament,  II.  206. 

Penn,  his  Annotations  to  the  Book  of  the  New  Covenant,  quoted,  II.  85,  270. 

Pentateuch,  the  Hebrew,  first  printed,  I.  138. 

Pentateuch,  the  Samaritan,  I.  78-103. 

Persian  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  I.  260  ;  of  the  New,  II.  221. 

Peshito,  meaning  of  the  term,  I.  244. 

Peshito  Syriac  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  I.  243,  &c. ;  its  age,  244-246  ; 

its  author,  247  ;    made  from  the  Hebrew,   248  ;  influence  of  the 

LXX.  on  it,  248,  249  ;  influence  of  the  Targums  upon  it,  250  ;  did 

not  contain  the  Apocrypha,  251  ;    its  dialect,  251  ;   recensions  of, 

252  ;  printed  editions  of,  252-254. 
Peshito  Syi-iac  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  58-60,  150-184. 
Pesukim,  I.  61. 
Petermann,  De  duabus  Pentateuchi  Paraphrasibus  Chaldaicis,  I.  235  ; 

referred  to,  II.  221. 
Petrus  of  Alexandria,  his  writings,  II.  340. 
Pettigrew's  Bibliotheca  Sussexiana,  I.  347. 
Philastrius,  Bishop  of  Brescia,  his  writings,  II.  360. 
Philentolos,  Daniel,  referred  to,  II.  229. 
Philo,  on  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint,  I.  167-168. 
Philo  of  Carpathus,  his  writings,  II.  347. 
Philoxenian-Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  185-194. 
Philoxenus,  II.  185. 

Photius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  his  writings,  II.  351. 
Phoebadius  of  Agen,  his  writings,  II.  360  ;  quoted,  414. 
Plantin  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  Ill  ;  edition  of  the  Peshito, 

172,  173. 
Pliischke's  Lectiones  Alexaudrinae  et  Hebraicae  referred  to,  I.  411. 
Plutarch's  Regum  et  imperator.  Apophthem,  I.  165. 
Piersou  and  Wheloc's  edition  of  the  Persian  version  of  the  gospels,  II. 

221,  222. 
Pinner's  Prospectus  der  der  Odessaer  Gesellschaft  fur  geschichte  uud 

Alterthiimer   gehorenden    altesten    hebraischeu   und   rabbinischen 

Manuscripte,  referred  to,  I.  46,  358  ;  MSS.  described  by,  357-362. 
Pirke  Aboth  referred  to,  I.  104. 

Pius  IV.  and  V.,  Popes,  their  labours  on  the  Vulgate,  I.  276,  277. 
Pococke's  Epistolae  Quatuor,  Petri  secunda,  &c.  II.  195. 
Polycarp  referred  to,  II.  43  ;  epistle  respecting  the  Martyrdom  of,  337. 
Polyglott,  the  Antwerp,  II.  172  ;  the  Paris,  174  ;  the  London,  174. 
Porphyry  referred  to,  II.  340. 
Person's  Letters  to  Archd.  Travis  referred  to,  I.  271  ;  11.  375  ;  quoted, 

407,  408,  426. 
TL^a^amffToXog,  II.  20. 

Primasius,  an  African  Bishop,  his  writings,  II.  360. 
Primitive  language,  the,  I.  13-15. 

Proclus,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  his  writings,  II.  347. 
Procopius  of  Gaza,  his  Commentaries,  II.  349. 

2  H 


466  INDEX. 

Prosper  of  Aquitain,  referred  to,  II.  361. 

Prudentius  of  Spain,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  361. 

Psalter,  the  Hebrew,  first  printed,  I.  137. 

Ptolemy  Philadelphus  and   Ptolemy   Lagi,    then-    connection   with   the 

LXX.  I.  164,  165,  170-174. 
Ptolemy,  the  Gnostic,  II.  337,  338. 
Punctuation,  the,  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  16. 

Quatremere's  Recherches  sur  la  langue  et  la  litterature  de  I'Egypte,  II. 

213. 
Quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New,  I.  308-313. 
Quotations  from  Rabbinical  writers,  I.  314-320. 
Quotations  fi-om  the  New  Testament  in  ancient  writers — Greek,  II.  335 

353  ;  Latin,  354-362  ;  Observations  on,  362-370. 

Rabbi  Asche  referi-ed  to,  I.  115. 

Rabbi  Judah,  the  Holy,  I.  115. 

Rabbinical  "Writers,  quotations  from  the  Old  Test,  in  them,  I.  314-320. 

Ragusio,  Cardinal  Johannes  de,  referred  to,  II.  293. 

Raymundus,  Baptista,  referred  to,  II.  223. 

Readings,  various,  causes  of,  I.  65-71  ;  288-293  ;  II.  23-29. 

Recensions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  68-87  ;  Griesbach's  system  of, 

72,  &c.  ;    Hug's,    75-79  ;   Eichhorn's,  79,  80 ;  MichaeHs's,  80,  81 ; 

Nolan's,  81 ;  Scholz's,  82  ;  Rinck's,  83  ;  Tischendorf's,  84  ;  remarks 

on,  88,  &c. 
Reiche,  his  Collation  of  Paris  MSS.,  II.  144. 
Reinke's  Beitraege  zur  Erklarung  des  alten  Testaments  referred  to,  I.  75, 

76,  403. 
Renaudot's  Litm'g.  Orient,  collectio,  II.  207. 
Rettig  his  fac-simile  of  the  Codex  Sangallensis  referred  to,  II.  144,  315, 

316. 
Reviser,  the,  of  Hebrew  MSS.,  I.  334. 
Rhedigerianus,  Codex,  II.  246. 
Ridley,  De  Syriacarnm  Novi  Foederis  Versionum  indole  etc.,  II.  185, 

193,  194. 
Rinck's  Classification  of  MSS.  &c.  &c.,  in  his  Lucubratio  Critica,  II.  83, 

144,  200. 
Ritschl  referred  to,  I.  165. 
Rocca,  Angelus,  referred  to,  I.  277. 
Roediger's  Gesenius's  Hebrew  Grammar,  I.  12,  18 ;  De  Origine  et  indole 

Arabicae  librorum  V.  T.  historicorum  interpret.  257. 
Roedigcr  (Mauritius)  Synopsis  Evangeliorum,  II.  432. 
Roman  edition  of  tlie  LXX.  I.  212  ;  of  the  Peshito,  II.  176. 
Rosenmiiller,   De  Versione  Pentateuchi  Persica  Commentatio,   I.   260  ; 

Handbuch  fur  die  Literatur,  u.  s.  w.  II.  172. 


INDEX.  467 

Rossi,  see  De  Rossi. 

Routh's  Reliquue  Sacrao,  II.  336,  339,  340. 

Rueckert's  Der  Brief  Puuli  an  die  Ephesier  eriiluteit  uud   vcrtheidigt, 

II.  159. 
Rufinus  of  Aquileia,  his  writings,  11.  361. 
Rules  for  the  right  use  of  ancient  versions,  II.  260,  261 ;  for  determining 

the  true  reading,  374-381 ;  for  the  right  use  of  the  Fathers  in  the 

criticism  of  the  sacred  text,  366-370. 
Ruricius  of  Limoges,  his  writings,  II.  361. 

Saadias,  Gaon,  his  Arabic  version  of  the  Scriptures,  1.  255. 

Saadias  Ben  Levi  Asnekoth,  Rabbi,  his  Arabic  version  of  Genesis,  Psahns, 

and  Daniel,  I.  257-8. 
Sabatier's   Bibliorum    Sacrormii   Latinae    versiones   antiquae  sen    vetus 

Italica,  &c.,  I.  203,  264  ;  II.  243. 
Sahidic  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  208,  209. 
Sainthill,  Richard,  on  numismatics,  quoted,  I.  35. 
Salvian,  Presbyter  of  Marseilles,  his  writings,  II.  361. 
Salomon  Ben  Melek,  Rabbi,  referred  to,  I.  409. 
lafiapitTiTiov,  I.  242. 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  its  value  and  characteristic  readings,  1.  78-94,  102, 

103  ;  its  antiquity,  94-101  ;  its  agreement  with  the  Septuagint,  101- 

102 ;  comparative  value  of  its  readings  and  those  of  the  Hebrew 

Pentateuch,  89-94  ;  when  first  printed,  101. 
Samaritan  version  of  the  Pentateuch,  I.  240-242. 
Samaritan  Writing,  I.  20-22. 

Samaritans,  their  origin  and  early  history,  I.  95-99. 
Sangallensis,  Codex,  II.  313-316. 

Sangermanenses,  Codd.  of  the  Latin  version,  II.  245,  247. 
Sangermanensis  Codex  (E),  II.,  295,  296. 
Santa  Croce  MS.  the,  quoted,  II.  410. 
Schaaf,  his  Syriac  Testament,  II.  164,  176,  177. 
Schelhorn's  Amoenitates  Litterariae,  I.  280. 
Schiede's  Observ.  Sacr.  biga  referred  to,  I.  327,  335. 
Schlichting  referred  to,  II.  373. 

Schnurrer's  Dissertatioues  Philologico-Criticae  referred  to,  I.  332,  333. 
Scholiast  or  critic  in  relation  to  Hebrew  MSS.,  I.  335. 
Scholz's  Einleitung,   I.   211,248;    classification  of  MSS.  of  the   Greek 

Testament,  II.  82 ;   Greek  Testament  described,   134-138  ;    Curae 

Criticae,  304;  Biblisch-Kritische  Reise,  229  ;  referred  to,  437. 
Sehwarze,  his  edition  of  the  INIomphitic  version  of  the  New  Testament, 

II.  210. 
Scrivener,  quoted,  II.  142,  170,  192. 
Sedulius,  his  writings,  II.  301. 
Seidel,  Erasmus,  referred  to,  II.  300. 


468  INDEX. 

Seidelii,  Codices,  II.  299-302. 

Semler,  quoted,  II.  71 ;  Hermeneutische  Vorbereitung,  295. 

Septuagint,  The,  origin  and  history  of,  I.  163-174;  character  of,  174, 
181-183,  192;  by  different  translators,  180;  hypotheses  as  to  its 
source  and  origin,  184-191 ;  its  value,  194  ;  was  read  in  some  syna- 
gogues, 195,  196  ;  esteemedbythe  Jews,  197  ;  Origen's  labours  on  it, 
200-207  ;  other  labourers  on  its  text,  207-208 ;  its  departures  from 
the  Hebrew,  209,  210 ;  apocryphal  additions  to  it,  210,  211  ;  principal 
MSS.  of  it,  211 ;  printed  editions  of  it,  211-214. 

Serapion,  Bishop  of  Thmuis,  his  writings,  II.  344. 

Severus,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  his  works,  II.  349. 

Shemitic  languages,  their  grammatical  character  and  division,  I.  10-12 ; 
alphabet  of,  24,  25,  &c. 

Shickhard's  Jus  Regium  Hebraeorum,  I.  323. 

Silvestrius,  II.  240. 

Simon's  Ilistoire  Critique  du  vieux  Testament,  referred  to,  I.  70,  247. 

Simonis's  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  150. 

Sinaiticus,  Codex,  II.  317. 

Sionita,  Gabriel,  II.  174,  223. 

Sirach,  Jesus  the  Son  of,  I.  177. 

Siricius,  his  writings,  II.  361. 

Sixtine  and  Clementine  editions  of  the  Vulgate,  I.  278-283. 

Sixtus  V,  Pope,  his  revision  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  I.  277,  278. 

Slavonic  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  238-240. 

Smith,  Dr.  W.,  his  dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  biography  and  my- 
thology, referred  to,  II.  252. 

Smith,  Dr.  J.  Pye,  his  Scripture  Testimony,  quoted,  II.  397. 

Smith,  Dr.  G-,  Bishop  of  Victoria,  on  the  Jews  at  K'ae-fung-foo,  I.  368, 
369. 

Socrates  of  Constantinople,  his  writings,  II.  348. 

Sopher,  or  Scribe  of  Hebrew  MSS.,  I.  332. 

Sources  of  criticism  in  the  N.  T.,  II.  1  ;  their  application,  374-381. 

Sources  of  criticism  in  the  O.  T.,  I.  4  ;  their  application,  382-387. 

Sozomen  of  Constantinople,  his  writings  referred  to,  II.  348. 

Speculum  of  Augustine,  the  so  called,  II.  409,  410. 

Spohn's  edition  of  Woide's  prolegomena  to  the  cod.  Alex.  II.  274. 

Steinschneider  referred  to,  I.  45,  46,  47,  115. 

Stephens,  Robert,  author  of  chapters  and  verses  in  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, n.  21 ;  editions  of  his  Greek  Testament,  111,  113-115. 

Stephens,  Henry,  his  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  H.  119. 

Steudel  referred  to,  I.  100. 

Stichometry  and  ffrl^oi,  II.  14-17. 

Stirnhielm,  G.  referred  to,  II.  230. 

Storr's  obscrvationes  super  N.  T.  Versionibus  Syriacis,  II.  193  ;  Disscrtat. 
Inaug.  Crit.  de  Evangcliis  Arabicis,  224. 


INDEX.  469 

Stosel,  II.  291. 

Stroth's  Repertorium,  I.  218. 

Stuart,  Professor,  referred  to,  I.  100  ;  his  critical  history  and  defence  of 

the  Old  Testament,  105  ;  on  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  186  ;  on 

Psalm  xxii.  17,  408 ;  on  1  Tim.  3,  16,  II.  403. 
Stunica  referred  to,  II.  419,  420. 

Subscriptions  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  11.  21. 
Suidas,  the  Lexicographer,  referred  to,  II.  351. 
^uva^dPiov^  what,  II.  20. 
Syncellus,  George,  his  Chronicon,  II.  350. 
Syncellus,  his  Chronographia,  I.  208. 

Synopsis  of  Sacred  Scripture,  the,  attributed  to  Athanasius,  II.  348. 
Syriac,  the  Peshito  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  I.  243-254  ;    of  the 

New  Testament,  II.   58,  60,    150-184;  the  Philoxenian,  184-194; 

other  Syriac  versions,  195-201. 

Talmud,  the  Babylonian,  what,  I.  115;  quoted,  20,  21,  30,  49,  50,  229, 

315;  the  Jerusalem,  115,  116,  195,  196, 
Tarn  and  Velshe  Hebrew  characters,  the,  I.  336. 
Tanchum,  Rabbi,  referred  to,  I.  409. 
Targum,  meaning  of  the  word,  I.  227. 
Targums,   their   origin,  I.  224-229  ;  Targum  of  Onkelos,  229-232  ;    of 

Jonathan,  232-234  ;  of  Pseudo-Jonathan,  234-236  ;    of  Jerusalem, 

236  ;  Targums  on  the  Hagiographa,  237-239. 
Tarasius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  his  works,  II.  350. 
Tatian  referred  to,  II.  337. 
Tertullian,  quoted  or  referred  to,  1.  195,  196  ;  II.  40,  46,  48,  49,  50,  59, 

411,  412  ;  his  writings,  361. 
Testament,  the  Greek,  editions  of,  II.  106-149. 
Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  referred  to,  II.  337. 
Tetrapla  of  Origen,  I.  201. 
Text,  of  the  Old  Testament,  external  form,  I.  56-63  ;  unprinted  text,  64- 

136;  printed,  137-161. 
Text,  of  the  New  Testament,  external  form,  II.  13-22  ;  the  canon,  30-38  ; 

unprinted  text,  39-87  ;  printed,  106-149. 
Thalassius,  a  Lybian  Monk,  his  writings,  II.  350. 
Thenius,  his  Die  Biicher  der  Koenige  erkliirt,  &c.,  I.  380. 
Theodore  the  Egyptian,  his  writings,  II.  344. 
Theodore,  Bishop  of  Heraclea,  his  works,  II.  344. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  his  writings,  II.  344  ;  quoted,  387. 
Theodore  Studites,  his  writings,  II.  350. 

Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyinis,  his  writings,  II.  347  ;  quoted,  393. 
Tlieodotus,  Bishop  of  Ancyra,  his  writings,  II.  348;  quoted,  389. 
Thcodotus  (of  the  2d  century)  refen'ed  to,  II.  337. 
Theodotion's  Greek  Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  I.  217-219. 


470  INDEX. 

Theodulus,  (Thomas  Magister),  referred  to,  II.  353. 

Theophanes,  a  Sicilian  Bishop,  his  writings,  II.  352. 

Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  his  writings,  II.  344. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch  referred  to,  II.  336. 

Theophylact,  Bishop  of  Bulgaria,  his  writings,  II.  352. 

Thiersch  De  Pentateuchi  Versione  Alexand.  I.  175,  176. 

Tholuck's  Auslegung  der  Bergpredigt,  referred  to,  II.  430. 

Thomson,  Dr.  James,  referred  to,  II.  108. 

Thornedyke,  Herbert,  referred  to,  I.  253. 

Tichoniiis,  the  African,  his  writings,  II.  361. 

Timotheus  of  Alexandria,  his  works,  II.  345. 

Tischendorf,  his  edition  of  the  LXX.  I.  213,  214  ;  classification  of  Greek 
MSS.  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  84, 103, 104;  editions  of  his  Greek 
Testament,  143,  144  ;  Mouumenta  Sacra  inedita,  144,  281,  297, 
303  ;  Evangelium  Palatinum  ineditum,  243  ;  Codex  Ephraemi 
llescriptus,  285  ;  Prolegomena  in  Cod.  Clai'omont.  290,  291,  292, 
296,  441  ;  referred  to,  280,  &c. 

Tischendorfianus,  Codex,  II.  316. 

Titles  of  the  New  Testament  Books,  II.  20. 

T/VXo/,  II.  17. 

Titus  of  Bostra,  his  writings,  II.  345. 

Todi'osius,  his  critical  labours  on  the  Pentateuch,  I.  151. 

Toepler,  De  Pentateuchi  interpretat.  Alexand.  indole  critica  et  hermen. 
referred  to,  I.  412. 

Toletanus,  Codex,  II.  256. 

Tregelles,  Dr.  S.  P.,  referred  to,  II.  104,  142,  144 ;  his  critical  edition  of 
the  Apocalypse  quoted,  117  ;  his  forthcoming  critical  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  146. 

Tremellius,  his  edition  of  the  Peshito  Syriac  New  Testament,  II.  170-172. 

Trent,  the  Council  of,  pronounces  the  Latin  Vulgate  authentic,  I.  275-276. 

Trost,  Martin,  his  edition  of  the  Peshito  Syriac  New  Testament,  II.  174. 

Turton  bishop,  referred  to,  II.  425. 

Twells,  Dr.  Leonard,  referred  to,  II.  123. 

Tychsen,  referred  to,  I.  138 ;  liis  Tentamen  de  Variis  Codicum  Hebrai- 
corum  Vet.  Test.  MSS.  generibus,  190,  191,  333,  403. 

Ulphilas,  his  Gothic  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  230,  &c. 
Uncial  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testament,  II.  262  ;  description  of,  271-317. 
Uscan,  his  edition  of  the  Armenian  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II. 

218. 
Usiiher  on  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  I.  100-101. 

Valckenaer's  Diatribe  de  Aristobulo  cited,  I.  173. 

Valentinus  referred  to,  II.  336. 

Valerian,  Bishop  in  the  Maritime  Alps,  his  writings,  II.  362. 


INDEX.  471 

Valla  Laurentius,  his  Variae  lectiones  refei'red  to,  II.  422. 

Vallarsi,  bis  edition  of  Jerome's  Works,  II.  255. 

Van  der  Hoogbt's  Hebrew  Bible,  I.  149. 

Van  Ess,   Leander,  bis  Pragmatiscb-kritische  Gescbicbte  der  Vulgata, 

referred  to,  I.  2G2,  276,  279. 
Various  readings  in  tbe  Old  Testament,  tbeir  sources,  I.  65-71 ;  specimens 

of,  derived  from  versions,  288-293 ;  in  the  New  Testament,  their 

sources,  II.  23-29. 
Vaticanus,  Codex,  II.  275-281. 
Vaticanus,  Codex  S.,  11.  309,  313. 
Vaticanus,  Codex  (r)  II.  313. 
Venetian-Greek  Version,  I.  222-223. 
Vercellensis,  Codex,  II.  244. 
Veronensis,  Codex,  II.  245. 

Verses  and  chapters,  division  of  the  New  Testament  into,  II.  21. 
Verschuir's  Dissertationes  Philolog.  I.  89. 
Versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  Greek,  I.  162-223  ;  Targums,  224-239  ; 

Samaritan   version  of    the   Pentateuch,   240-242 ;    Pesbito   Syriac, 

243-254  ;  Arabic,  255-260  ;  Persian,  260  ;  Latin,  261-284  ;  remarks 

on,  and  ci'itical  application  of,  285-293. 
Versions  of  the  New  Testament,  tbe  Pesbito,  II.  150-183  ;  versions  made 

from  it,  183  ;  the  Philoxenian,  185-194  ;  other  Syrian  versions,  195- 

201;    Ethiopic,    202;    Egyptian,    206-214;    Armenian,    215-220 

Georgian,  221  ;  Persian,  221 ;  Arabic,  222-219  ;  Gothic,  230-237 

Sclavonic,  238-240 ;    Latin,  240-258  ;    Observations  on,    250,  &c. 

rules  for  tbeir  use,  260. 
Victor  of  Antioch,  his  Commentary  on  Mark,  referred  to,  II.  348. 
Victor  of  Tunis,  his  works,  II.  362. 
Victor  Vitensis,  his  writings,  II.  362. 
Victorinus  Philosophus,  his  writings,  II.  362. 

Vigilius  of  Tapsus  in  Africa,  his  writings,  II.  362  ;  quoted,  415,  417. 
Viridobonensis,  Codex,  II.  245. 

Vitre,  Anthony,  Editor  of  the  Paris  Polyglott,  II.  227. 
Vloten's,  Van,  specimen  Philologicum  continens  descriptionem  Codicis  MS. 

Bibliotbecae  Lugduno-Batavae,  I.  259. 
Vowel  points,  Hebrew,  I.  37-55. 
Vulgate,  the  Latin,  text  of,  till  the  invention  of  printing,  I.  270-273  ; 

printed  editions,  273-284 ;  pronounced  authentic  by  the  Council  of 

Trent,  275,  276. 

Wakefield's  Translation  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  443. 
Walton,  quoted,  I.  6,  101,  253;  II.  119,  174,  226. 
Warka,  the  first  translator  of  the  Bible  into  Arabic,  I.  255. 
Wetstein,  John  James,  his  Greek  Testament,  11. 124-127,  236  ;  Libelli  ad 
crisin  atqiie  interp.  Nov.  Tost,,  370. 


472  INDEX. 

White,  Professor,  his  edition  of  the  Philoxenian  Syriac  New  Testament, 

II.  188,  189,  193. 
Wheloc  and  Pierson's  edition  of  the  Persian  Gospels,  II.  222. 
Wichelhaus,  De  Novi  Test.  Versione  Syriaca  antiqua,  &c.  referred  to,  11. 

155,  159,  163,  164,  173. 
Widmanstadt's  Peshito  Syriac  Testament,  II.  167-170. 
Wilkins'  edition  of  the  Memphitic  version  of  the  New  Testament,  II.  209, 

210. 
Winer,  De  versionis  Pentateuchi  Samaritanae  indole,  I.  240,  241 ;  Gram- 

matik   des   neutestamentlichen  Sprachidioms,  II.    9,    11,  401 ;    De 

Versionibus  N.  T.  Syriacae  usu  critico  caute  instituendo,  159. 
Wiseman's  Horae  S^Tiacae  referred  to,  I.  245,  246,  251,  252;  II.  188  ; 

Two  letters  on  1  John  v.  7,  243,  409. 
Woide  referred.to,  II.  208,  273,  274. 
Wolfii   Bibliotheca   Ilebraea,   I.   128,  325 ;  Anecdota  Graeca,  II.  302  ; 

Curae  Philologicaj,  424. 
Wright,  Dr.,  quoted,  II.  22. 
Writing  materials  employed  by  the  New  Testament  writers,  II.  13. 

Ximenes,  Cardinal,  references  to,  I.  141,  142,  274  ;  II.  106. 

Yeates,  Thomas,  his  collation  of  an  Indian  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Penta- 
teuch, I.  368. 

Zahn,  J.  Ch.  referred  to,  II.  231,  236. 

Zeno,  Bishop  of  Verona,  II.  362. 

Zoega,  his  Catalogus  Codd.  Copt.  MSS.  Musei  Borgiani,  referred  to, 
II.  213. 

Zohrab,  Dr.,  his  critical  edition  of  the  Armenian  version  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, II.  219. 

Zonaras  of  Constantinople,  his  writings,  II.  352. 

Zosimus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  his  Epistles  referred  to,  II.  362. 

Zunz,  his  Die  gottesdienstlichen  Vortrage,  cited,  I.  228. 


EDINBURGH  :       - 
PRINTED    BY    R.    AND    R.    a,.VRK. 


< 


t  ■"  !r 


if    .  ■*^ 


'» 


■^         #         ^         '^         "^ 

^    -^    ^'    t     ^f 


3^.7^^  ^:^... 


i&-m    K#J»-   .'j'.^f 


